Ridgway, T.W. v Consolidated Energy Corporation Pty Ltd

[1986] FCA 626

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

I

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No.Gl03 of 1986
I
GENERAL DIVISION	)

:	-	B
m C E WILLIAM RIDGWAY

First Applicant

m:

CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION

PTY. LIMITED

Second Applicant

-	AND:
CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION
PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

TEXENCE GEORGE MORROW

Second Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE:	Fox J.
DATE OF ORDER:	9 December 1986
WHERE MADE:	Sydney.

W COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The second respondent pay to the Deputy Registrar of the

Court within 21 days after service upon it of a copy of

herein: order the ,/

i .

L.

( a ) for payment to the first applicant the sum of

$201,529.83: and

(b) for payment to the second applicant the sum of

$88 ,792 .56 .

2.    The second respondent pay the costs of the applicants of

the proceedinas. including the costs of the hearing on 9

December 1986.

N o t e :

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

?.' .. '

-	IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.Gl03 of 1986
G_ENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

TERANCE WILLIAM RIDGWAY

First Applicant

a:

CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION

PTY. LIMITD

Second Applicant

CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION

PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

m E N C E GEORGE MORROW

Second Respondent

CORAM: FOX J.

DAB: 9 DECEMBER 1986

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(M TEMPORE)

Since I delivered the principal judqment In this matter

on 27 November last, there has been put before me evidence which

establishes to my satisfaction that the second respondent,

Terence Georue Morrow, was aware at all relevant times of the

absence of title in the first respondent to urant the licences in

2.

question. and, indeed, that he was specifically warned orally and

in writing that the title did not exist.

I have used the word "title" as correspondins with the

term used in the principal iudgment in which I dealt simply with

5.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. There was little doubt,

however, that other of the sections relied upon were applicable

to the situation, and that s.75B of the Act applies in relation

to the participation by the second respondent in contraventions

of those other provisions.

It seems to me, therefore, to flow, by a joint

application of ss.82 and 75B, that the second respondent is

liable. with the first respondent, for the payment of the damases

which I have already assessed, and I order that judment be

entered against him accordingly. His liability is joint. He

should also be jointly liable with the first respondent f o r the

costs of the proceedings, but he should be solely liable for the

proceedings today.

I certify that this and the

precedinq page are a true

copy of the Reasons for

Judgment herein	of his Honour
Mr. Justice Fox.

Associate 4 q A

Dated: 9 December 1986

3 .

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr F G Lever

Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs Moore & Bevins

Counsel for the Respondent: NO appearance the for

respondent

Date of supplementary hearing: Sydney: 9 December 1986

Date supplementary judgment

delivered: Sydney: 9 December 1986

m , '