State of Queensland & Anor v The Commonwealth of Australia

[1988] HCATrans 334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B80 of 1987

B e t w e e n -

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND and
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Plaintiffs

and

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Defendant

GRAHAM FREDERICK RICHARDSON

Second Defendant

Application for remitter and

for further and better particulars

GAUDRON J

Queensland
( In	Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 16 DECEMBER 1988, AT 10.10 AM

(Continued from 11/11/88)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SlTl/1/PLC 38 16/12/88

MR G.L. DAVIES, QC:  May it please Your Honour, I appear with

my learned friend, MR D.J. McGILL, for the plaintiffs.

(instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Queensland)

MR G. GRIFFITH, QC, Solicitor-Genral for the Commonwalth: If

Your Honour pleases, MR M.J. BLACK, QC, and I appear with

our learned friend, MR C.M. MAXWELL, for the defendants.

(instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

Although it is the plainti-ffs·' summons, Your Honour,

I think probably at this stage of the part-heard summons

it is our turn to indicate to Your Honour what the position

now is.

If I could indicate, firstly, Your Honour, that

the issue of listing which was foreshadowed in my learned

friend, Mr Black's submissions to Your Honour on 11 November

has now been determined on 9 December, that the whole of

the nominated area was listed. There has been a further

change of the matters particularly pleaded in that - I do

not know whether Your Honour was made aware of the fact

that the area nominated was slightly different from the

area originally made the subject-matter to the proclamation,

made 31 March, which was the proclamation pleaded and that
the regulations of 31 March were attached to that proclamation
made pursuant to section 6(3) of the Act. In that
circumstance, Your Honour, the area having been listed,
it was appropriate that the regulations should attach to

the correct area and the manner of implementation of that

was that yesterday there was a new proclamation made and

also, Your Honour, new regulations which I am instructed

are in the same form as the previous regulations but a copy is not yet available other than by perusal on the window of

the Government Printer's Office in Canberra. But I have

indicated to my learned friend, Mr Davies, they are my
instructions and my understanding of the content is limited

to that.

I have had discussions with my learned,

Mr Davies, today and I can indicate firstly, Your Honour,

that particulars of a displacement of about three kilograms

have b~en delivered in compliance with Your Honour's order

and my learned friend, Mr Davies, after his arduous journey

travelling first north and then south here yesterday,

I understand, Your Honour, is content to take those away and would, I suppose, initially raise any relevant issue

with us before mentioning it to the relevant court as to response to the request but being within the spirit of a
those particulars; but they are bulky and we would hope,

response to the request. In some aspects they are very

exhaustive as representative of the particular matters

over the area. I understand there is something like 80

to 90 grid areas of 18 kilometres square that have to be

covered, Your Honour, and the particulars disclose the

nature of the reliance upon the particular matters tru!re.	So that
I think for today's proceedings, Your Honour, we can put
the particulars on one side.

SlTl/2/PLC	39	16/12/88
Queensland

Your Honour, it was foreshadowed by my learned friend,

Mr Black, that it would be the defendants' contention

that there would be a significant issue of constitutional

inquiry which could be defined once the result of listing

was determined and, Your Honour, we have sought to express

that issue, and if I could express it very simply. It

is now the defendants' contention that on the effect of

listing in so far as the plaintiffs' amended statement of

claim claims a declaration that the proclamation is invalid -

and now we refer to the new proclamation rather than the
old one, Your Honour - we would submit, Your Honour, that

merely on the ground that the property is included in the World Heritage List pursuant to article 11, is conclusive to the validity of the proclamation. So, Your Honour,

that is really our contention as a matter of - or really

a matter, Your Honour, of constitional law.

HER HONOUR: Do you intend to plead that in some way?

MR GRIFFITH:  Yes, we do. I have discussed the course of

pleadings with my learned friend and he has given me this

morning a manuscript, "Proposed Further Amended Statement

of Claim" which he would desire to put to the Court. I do

not know whether it would be convenient for my learned

friend if I gave you that on a proforma indicative basis.

MR DAVIES:  Yes, that is so, Your Honour. I do not want to

address Your Honour now. Can I just say with respect to

that that on our pleading the listing, of course, on this

first point is irrelevant and so we do not find it necessary

to plead the listing.	Our statement of claim is not
significantly changed from what it was before.	In fact,

it is shorter. There are a couple of deletions; for example,

the reference to the previous regulations, the reference to
the application for listing and so on have been deleted.

What I did, Your Honour, was really go through it lastni..ght and make, as my learned friend said correctly, some

manuscrift changes to our original statement of claim and

I would be happy for our learned friend - I intended to hand it up to Your Honour on the basis that Your Honour would, in

the end, give us both leave to replead, and perhaps not bind

me finally to that form of statement of claim because there

may be some other changes which we would want to make to it. At the moment I cannot see any but maybe there are.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you.

MR GRIFFITH:  Your Honour, perhaps I could hand up a bundle.

My learned friend has prepared this amended statement of

claim which regards the earlier proclamation and regulations

as moot. There seems to be no outstanding issue about them.

Your Honour, without having the advantage of that, we

prepared a proposed amended defence which pleaded the fact

of listing as a defence, Your Honour, and we also prepared

a proposed demurrer which I have discussed with my learned

friend and he points out that it could be put that the

reference to "listing" which is raised by the defence cannot

correctly be pleaded by us by way of demurrer because the

SlTl/3/PLC	40	16/12/88
Queensland

demurrer arises from our allegation rather than his and

that would seem to be a good point, Your Honour. But

perhaps if I could hand Your Honour the draft which

indicates the point which, that point having been made

to us, we would propose to include as an additional

paragraph in our defence. So, could I hand Your Honour

the pleaded point which will go in the defence.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you. I am not too sure that I follow what

you said but if I look at the documents it might become

clearer.

MR GRIFFITH:  Your Honour, the document headed "Demurrer" should

be regarded as an added paragraph to the amended defence as

pleading a point of law as absolute bar. friend's document but it shows the drift of the pleading,

Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:	Yes, thank you.
MR GRIFFITH:	Basically, Your Honour need not concern yourself with the terms of the amended defence other than if I could
indicate to Your Honour that paragraph - there is an
allegation of the revised boundaries. There is an
allegation of the new regulations and proclaimation
which would have to be connected with my learned friend's amended pleaded deleting reference to the earlier
proclamation· and regulation.  Paragraph 3 (b) on page 2
alleges listing and then, Your Honour, the pleading
otherwise follows much the course of the old one with appropriate amendments. But, really, the important issue,
Your Honour, is that covered by the document headed "Demurrer" which we would now propose to plead as a point of law being
an absolute answer to the half of the plaintiffs' statement of claim dealing with validity of the proclamation.
Your Honour will appreciate there is two issues: the first
is the validity of the proclamation, the constitutional
issue, if I could put it; the second one as to whether
the regulations are a means for effecting reasonably
adapted, whatever the appropriate test is and that is an
issue, Your Honour, which we do not seek to canvass at the
moment as a preliminary issue.  But we say, Your Honour,
the matter adumbrated by this expression in this
document headed "Demurrer" is a point of law which we intend
to plead as an absolute answer to the plaintiffs' claim.

Now, Your Honour, my learned friend is not in a

position to indicate, this happening very recently,

in our discussions what is - - -

HER HONOUR:	I wonder if it is really a demurrer point.
MR GRIFFITH:	Your Honour, that is the interesting thing but

my learned friend is not in a position to indicate that
he would demur to our pleading of this point as it being
an absolute debar but, Your Honour, I think it is agreed

that the pleading of this would call for a reply and I

SlTl/4/PLC	41	16/12/88
Queensland

think we more or less would agree, Your Honour, that

if my learned friend does not demur to this, the

defendant could demur to the reply and get to the same

result that this would be the issue of law. In effect,

Your Honour, it is just a simple question: is it a complete answer, as a matter of law to the claim that

the proclamation is invalid, that the property has been

listed pursuant to article 11 and therefore it becomes

a matter of international obligation. So that directly

relates to the issue of the constitutional power.

Now, Your Honour, we would submit that when one

looks at the issue to be distilled out that way, firstly.

it is appropriate that this pleading take place so we do
see what is the final expression of issues between the

parties and the reality is because of new proclamations,

new regulations, listing, the bringing forward of this

point, in effect, we have lost ground since the last time

so far as getting to the point of distillation of the

real issue between the parties on validity of the

proclamation but at the same time we have made up ground,

Your Honour, because we seem to have identified a precise

concise issue.

Your Honour will recollect that in the RICHARDSON

case His Honour the Chief Justice ordered questions to be

stated for hearing to the Full Court. The first one was

"To what extent, if any, is the LEMJNTHYME AND SOUTHERN

FOREST COM:MISSION OF INQUIRY ACT invalid?",and we would

submit, Your Honour, that the question here perhaps is

somewhat narrower but it is one of the same sort, it is

just this issue, so identified, is just a - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes, but I do seem to recollect in that case,

Mr Solicitor, there was the potential of factual disputation

when it got to the end of the day.

MR GRIFFITH: In RICHARDSON?

HER HONOUR: I~ RICHARDSON.

MR GRIFFITH:  I think at the end of the day the Court's decision

was determinative, Your Honour, that was - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes, but at one stage during the course of argument

it looked as though there might be the potential for
factual disputation and you had to rely in the end on the
acceptance of factual matters in the Chief Justice's

interim decision.

MR GRIFFITH:  They were referred to, yes, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:.It was acknowledged by the parties that the Court

could rely on those matters. I just raise that because

if there are factual matters, the distillation of the

question of law alone may not be sufficient.

SlTl/5/PLC	42
Queensland

MR GRIFFITH: Yes, Your Honour, on this issue, it is submitted,

there are no factual matters because it is a pure point

of however the plaintiff pleads it, Your Honour, we say that

it is conclusive of validity that it has been listed.

It is then a matter of international obligation and that

there is then no issue of fact. If we are correct, we would

say, Your Honour, the appropriate declaration would be

that the proclamation is valid. So that the only live issue

in the case would be the question of whether the regulations

are adapted et cetera which then could go off and be

determined, Your Honour, but we see no relevant issue of

fact.

Your Honour, we had drafted a form of special case which

until we explored this issue of repleading, got to the

same point. It might be of assistance to Your Honour, in

dealing with is there a question of fact, if I gave

Your Honour what we would suggest - my learned friend has a copy, Your Honour - as to how one would get to the same

question be a special case under section 18 of the JUDICIARY

ACT and Your Honour will see our version, and I indicate it is our version, Your Honour, and perhaps I will refer in a

second to my learned friend's suggestion to me about it.

But, Your Honour, it merely pleads the proclamation, the

regulations, the listing, the new proclamation, the new

regulations and then distills the question of law.

Your Honour, my learned friend has indicated that - - -

HER HONOUR: May I just go to the last question? That is intended

to refer to both proclamations or - - -?

MR GRIFFITH: Well, Your Honour, we did not know my learned friend's

attitude about the first proclamation and regulation.If he

indicates that he is content to regard it as moot and the

only live one, the extant one, Your Honour, we are happy to

narrow it to that.	If he would prefer to run both, well
then, they can be run.	It was just in anticipation of not

knowing my learned friend's attitude.

Your Honour, my learned friend has indicated that

he would seek to refer to the guide-lines for listing

matters, Your Honour, that can be incorporated, if it is	which are provided for under the convention and they are	done in the pleading, by just pleading a reference to them
and attaching them to either my learned friend's reply or to a demurrer to his reply, and were it to be done a
different way, Your Honour, they could be included just
being annexed as agreed guide-lines to this document.
Our contention would be that the guide-lines make no
difference as a matter of result. My learned friend contends
that they would but, Your Honour, that would seem to be just a matter of attaching the particular documents. But, Your Honour, this is really by way of a cross-check to
indicate that there does seem to be a pure question pleaded as an absolute answer to the first-half of the claim dealing with the validity of proclamation. Your Honour,
if one says, "Well, could this be got to another way?",
another way would be if we moved to strike out on the basis there was no reasonable cause of action on the grounds that

SlTl/6/PLC	43	16/12/88
Queensland

listing is a bar and then we would have an affidavit

and put in the evidence about listing and get to the same

point. Really, Your Honour, the end issue is that we

would submit there is distilled an issue appropriate for

the Full Court and perhaps if we could test that

contention, Your Honour, by submitting that were this

question to be distilled out of the pleading, remitted

to some other court -we would contend, Your Honour -

I do not know whether my learned friend would disagree -

at the very least it would be a matter for a Full Court

of the remittee court to look at. It is, once more, a

pure point of law determinative of the issue and one, we would submit, appropriate to be determined because

the alternative is perhaps a trial on all these issues

of fact that are referred to in our pleading. The

affidavit material indicated the plaintiffs saw a six-

week trial. I think, Your Honour, we would see at least

a 60-week trial and it remains, Your Honour - our view

is that all the evidence would be irrelevant on validity

of proclamation. Some of it may be relevant on the

validity of regulation but that would be a different inquiry
but on the question - my learned friend has pleaded,

Your Honour, on validity of proclamation either in whole or in part, two grounds: one is that as a matter of

absolute fact this whole area or part of it is not World

Heritage or, alternatively, as a matter of fact, it

could not reasonably be regarded as World Heritage either
in whole or in part. We, of course, Your Honour, would

'incline to say on any view the test must be towards the

latter, a sort of a revised WEDNESBURY one that could
an executive acting reasonably so regard it rather than

would a court, finding the fact de novo so regard it,

but that is an issue obviously subsumed in that pleading,

and my learned friend has pleaded it both ways.

Your Honour, one can see a large inquiry of fact as

to that which we say would be rendered wholly nugatory.

If we are right in our simple contention, it does not

matter, it is foreclosed on listing. And that is our

submission, Your Honour, that it is. So that if Your Honour

were not minded to let the pleadings run its course in

this Court, let us see the question that comes out of

those pleadings and then consider whether that either is

to be put before the Court because there is a good demurrer

there,which we expect to happen -being our demurrer, if not my learned friend's - or because there is clearly a

simple case stated point or because there could be an

application to strike out. If Your Honour took the view that,

for example, all this should be sorted out in another court,

we would say that one would merely expect that the result

would be that it would come to a Full Court of that court

and then come back to the High Court because obviously, law where the authoritative decision of this Court would be sought, whatever would be the view of a court down below. But we do say at the same time, Your Honour, it seems to

be, in a way, a cleaner point than the RICHARDSON one

because it is just, as we have put it, Your Honour, a question

of what we say is now a short answer on listing.

SlTl/7/PLC	44	16/12/88
Queensland

Now that, of course, explains, Your Honour, what

otherwise might be regarded as prevarication and delay

of the 12 months past. It is, I think, only now 7 days

short of 12 months since this stated, Your Honour, but really these things could not be put until the listing

of 9 December and since then, Your Honour, they have been articulated and the proclamation and the regulations have

been replaced and, in effect, the case is starting again. process being completed in a matter of days. It could

be completed before Christmas. Then, Your Honour,

if it emerges as a proper demurrer, well then, we would

see the opposing parties serving notice on the Registry

to set it down. If it was to emerge as a case stated or

application to strike out, well, it would be necessary

to have another directions hearing, but we would see the

same result as being, in our submission, appropriate.

We do not see, Your Honour, any issue of fact which would need to concern the High Court other than I mentioned

these guide-lines that my learned friend indicates that he

seeks to refer to.	We see that they could be directly
attached to the court documents.	So, our application today,

Your Honour, is that there should be orders for timely repleading by way of amended statement of claim, defence,

reply and, if necessary, demurrer. We are certainly

prepared to plead next day after any pleading that we get,

Your Honour, and that if there is then a demurrer, that

an opportunity be given to the party whose obligation it

is to set it down. If there is not, Your Honour, then

we would suggest that this summons again come before

Your Honour and Your Honour to then determine whether a

case should be stated and, in our submission, for the

reasons stated, would be that it should be and we would

say, Your Honour, the alternative course, that of

innnediate remitter, would not seem appropriate.

It goes without saying, Your Honour, that we are of

the view that Your Honour should dispose of these pleading
issues and not remit to another court at this stage,

really for the same reasons as Your Honour was inclined

on 11 November rather than remit and let these issues, as	to dispose of the pleading issues when the matter came on
they develop, be resolved there. But, Your Honour, it is,
we would submit, just a simple constitutional point in
articulation. Perhaps the answer is more difficult but,
really, Your Honour, we would suggest that is a matter which - whether it goes direct or comes up indirectly -
is destined, in the absence of the plaintiffs filing a notice of continuance and I will not ask my learned friend
whether he would expect to get instructions as to that.
It is inevitable, Your Honour, that the Full Court of this
Court will eventually have to deal with the issue.
Now, one could perhaps test it another way, Your Honour - and I know each test seems to have the same
answer, in our submission - if the matter were remitted
now, we would submit this issue which we have identified

SlTl/8/PLC	45
Queensland

is the sort of issue which,ex facie,either a State or

Commonwealth Attorney could remove into this Court

as the paradigm example of a constitutional issue of the sort that rarely but occasionally are removed by

Attorneys into this Court. But we do not indicate

that other than a way of just perhaps testing our

contention, Your Honour, that there is this

appropriate issue now identified. If Your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Solicitor.

r1	MR DAVIES:	Your Honour, can I say first of all that I accept the view that Your Honour expressed last time, that whilst the pleadings are not complete, that the matter
should remain in this Court, that it should not be
remitted to a judge to determine questions of fact because, of course, as our learned friend said, his submissions
and, indeed, most of mine this morning will deal mainly
with the first question, that is the validity of the
proclamation. The question of validity of the
regulations, our learned friend and I agree, has to be
determined as a question of fact, in this sense: in the sense that the relevant test was stated by this Court in the LEMONTHYME FOREST case, perhaps in
slightly different language by the members of the Court
but in the end stating, we would submit, much the same
test. Can I quote what Your Honour said because it
really does encapsulate what most of the others of Their Honours said? The test you posed on validity
of what would be equivalent to the regulations here
was:

Reasonably capable of being viewed as conducive to the purpose of the treaty,

if it is also reasonably capable of being

viewed as appropriate or adapted to the

circumstances which engage the power.

So, that really seems to be the test, "reasonably

capable of being viewed as appropriate or adapted to

the purposes of the convention" in this case.

That is accepted by us and,we undersand, by

our learned friends, as the test which would be

applicable to the validity of the regulations. As

Your Honour would recall, it is the regulations which

prohibit the activities in the area proclaimed. Now,

that question must be determined, in the end, by a trial

court.	I simply mention that, Your Honour, because we
would not like that to be lost sight of.	We want it to

be a case which continues to move forward towards a

trial on that issue, however the first issue is determined,

in other words, by whatever means it is determined and

with whatever result, we would like the second question

of this case to continue to proceed towards the trial of

that second question.

Coming back then to the first question, Your Honour:

to some extent both our learned friends and we are maybe

SlT2/l/PLC	46	16/12/88
Queensland

speculating a little as to the course of pleading. I

would not envisage that our statement of claim, the draft

which we handed up to Your Honour, would vary very much

and we would be more than happy to have an order that we

plead that in final form by, say, Tuesday, and our learned friend has indicated a defence within a short period after that incorporating what he has - the document which he

has headed "Demurrer" by way of defence. I, at the

moment, would envisage that we would perhaps rely because
we would wish, as our learned friend has indicated, to

say something additional and that is this: as our

learned friend has said to Your Honour, our contention

with respect to the validity of proclamation

at the moment is that the property is not natural heritage

and, alternatively, it is not reasonably capable of being

regarded as natural heritage. And if either of those

contentions is the test and is correct then we would win

for that reason alone on that question of validity. But
we would also want to contend that on the proper construction
of the convention it is not the function of the World
Heritage Committee to determine whether property is part
of natural heritage and to that end we would want to

incorporate in our pleading the criteria which the committee

has defined pursuant to article 11(5) of the convention.

So, I would, at the moment, perhaps see our reply as denying the allegation that listing has any relevance and certainly

that it is inclusive on the question of validity of the

proclamation and adding to what is really our previous

contention - as an alternative to our previous contention,

that the property, because it is not natural heritage and

not reasonably capable of being so regarded, the proclamation

is invalid, that listing has no relevance because the

World Heritage Committee does not consider that question at

all.

Now, as to the course of pleading subsequent to

that, I guess one really speculates and perhaps one really -
I should not go further and speculate in that respect.

But it does seem, as our learned friend said, that

what we really need is leave to replead with respect to

the statement of claim, the defence, reply and demurrer,

if necessary.

Your Honour, the only other point that I really want

to mention, and that is the question of particulars, and

to really say a little more than our learned friend said.

We were given those this morning. Our learned friend offered

them to me fairly early this morning at 8.30 or so but

there did not seem to be much point in attempting to.go

through that document between 8.30 and now with a view to

mounting an argument as to the adequacy of the particulars.

So that really seems to be, if it is going to be an argument,

an argument for another day. And for the moment we see

really the only course that we could ask Your Honour to

take this morning is leave to replead in the way that we

have indicated.

S1T2/2/PLC	47	16/12/88
Queensland

HER HONOUR: Well, I think though, there should be a fixed

mention day.

MR DAVIES:  Yes, we would like that, Your Honour, because we are

concerned, as I say, to keep the action running

particularly as to the second aspect so it is not lost

sight of.

HER HONOUR: In January?

MR DAVIES:	Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	I will allow you to consider that.
MR DAVIES:	Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Nominating a date by which one might reasonably

expect the pleadings to have been concluded, say,

mid-January. If the Solicitor's estimates are correct,

we should expect that the pleadings would be completely

in order by that time.

MR DAVIES:  Yes, I think that if mine and my learned friend's

expectations are realized, they will be complete by

the end of next week. So, I think we could have Friday,

20th, my learned friend suggests.

HER HONOUR: It is a little late.

MR DAVIES:	I think we are both happy to meet Your Honour's convenience as to when that might be - a suitable date
for Your Honour, really, in January.

HER HONOUR:  Any time is suitable. But I am concerned that this

matter should be in order before the commencement of the

new law term.

MR DAVIES:  We are too, Your Honour, and the 20th, as Your Honour,

says, sounds a little late. Well, perhaps Friday, the 13th,

Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: It is convenient to all parties? It may not be

necessary for such numerous attendance, of course.

MR DAVIES:  I am sure that is convenient, Your Honour, from our

point of view.

MR GRIFFITH:  If Your Honour is happy if only one counsel

attended it might be enough. I am happy to do it.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. I think, having regard to what normally

happens in January, one could expect that - it will simply,

I should expect, be a mention on that occasion.

MR GRIFFITH:  Yes, Your Honour, although it is a matter of concern

and certainly I am happy to come on that day and finalize

it, Your Honour.

SlT2/3/PLC	48	16/12/88
Queensland
HER HONOUR:	Yes.	Now, costs, today?

MR DAVIES:  I think that we would both probably accept that the

costs should be reserved today. I do not know that we can

do much else but agree on that, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:	Yes.
MR DAVIES:	Could I indicate, Your Honour - Your Honour mentioned

"just for mention". There is, of course, a possibility
that on that date we might be wanting to ask Your Honour to
remit the matter to a court for determination of the issues

of fact.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Thank you for that.

MR GRIFFITH:  Your Honour, perhaps if I could give an indication

about that. Your Honour, just looking at the issues,

one could see that it probably would be possible to split

and remit the validity of regulations as a matter to rnn

concurrently with the Full Court. As a matter of

principle, Your Honour, I cannot see any difficulty about

that.

MR DAVIES:  We would be happy to do that now, Your Honour, if

my learned friend is happy and Your Honour is - - -

MR GRIFFITH:  I think we have to do it on the pleading, Your Honour,

to be remitting the issue on the pleading.

HER HONOUR:	It would have to be done on the pleading.
MR DAVIES:	Yes, of course.
HER HONOUR:	In fact, if the parties were agreed on that course

it might be necessary to recast the pleadings with that

in mind.

MR GRIFFITH:  That might be useful, Your Honour. We then would

have an issue as to which court it should be remitted.

HER HONOUR:	Yes.
MR GRIFFITH:	There is an application to go to the Queensland court,

Your Honour. We would say as a matter of convenience

the Federal Court should hear it but that would be an issue

for Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. In that case, I grant leave to the parties to

replead.	I will not set any time limits. There is a problem
about time running during vacation any way.	I will assume

that it will be repleaded in the times suggested. Costs of

all parties of today will be reserved. I certify for counsel

and stand the matter over for relisting at 10.15 am on

Friday, 13 January.

AT 10.46 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL FRIDAY, 13 JANUARY 1989

S1T2/4/PLC	49	16/12/88
Queensland