Trade Practices Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd (No 2)

[1980] FCA 36

T r a d e P r a c t i c e s Act d e f e n d a n t s 1 9 7 4 - submiss ion of no c a s e t o

answer - w h e t h e r t h e s h o u l d b e r e q u i t e d t o

elect n o t t o c a l l e v i d e n c e - p r a c t i c e t o b e a d o p t e d a n d

m a t t e r s t o b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t

T r a d e P r a c t i c e s C o m m i s s i o n v . G e o r g e W e s t o n Foods

Limi ted

No. G.16 of 1978

Dav ies ,	J.
Canberra

11 March 1980

i

b

I N THE	FEDERAL	COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. 6 .16 of 1 9 7 8

D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y
GENERAL	D I V I S I O N 0

I n t h e matter of -

THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1 9 7 4

B e t w e e n : TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

P l a i n t i f f

And : GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED

F i r s t Defendan t

And : ALLIED r . m L s INDUSTRIES PTY. LIMITED

Second D e f e n d a n t

And : L .A. COGGAN & SON PTY . LIMITED

T h i r d Defendant

And : JAElES MUREWY O G I L V I E

F o u r t h D e f e n d a n t

And : ISABEL MARGARET O G I L V I E

F i f t h Defendan t

And : JOHN FREDERICK DALLAS

S i x t h D e f e n d a n t

RULING

11 March 1 9 8 0 DAVIES, J.

I .

2.

I

The fo l lowing r easons were d e l i v e r e d o r a l l y o n 11 March 1980 :

The d e f e n d a n t s , b y t h e i r c o u n s e l , seek t o move fo r j udgmen t on

t h e g r o u n d s e n i o r t h a t t h e r e is no case t o answer. Mr. Masterman,

c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f , h a s s u b m i t t e d t h a t c o u n s e l f o r

t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d n o t b e p e r m i t t e d so t o move u n l e s s t h e y

e l e c t n o t t o c a l l e v i d e n c e i n t h e t r i a l .

C o u n s e l d o n o t r e l y u p o n a n y s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n o f t h e F e d e r a l

C o u r t Act 1976 or of t h e r u l e s , b u t r e f e r e n c e was made t o r u l e 1

o f o r d e r 3 5 a n d a l s o t o t h e i n h e r e n t p o w e r s o f t h e C o u r t . R u l e

1 o f o r d e r 35 p r o v l d e s t h a t t h e C o u r t may a t a n y s t a g e o f t h e

p r o c e e d i n g , o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n y p a r t y , p r o n o u n c e s u c h

judgmen t o r make s u c h o r d e r a s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e case requires.

Counsel f o r a l l p a r t i e s a r e a g r e e d t h a t s e c t i o n 7 9 o f t h e

J u d l c i a r y A c t 1 9 7 3 d o e s n o t a p p l y t o t h i s h e a r l n g a n d t h a t , i n

c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n , I am n o t , a s was Mr. J u s t i c e

F i s h e r , i n T r a d e P r a c t i c e s C o m m i s s i o n v . N i c h o l a s E n t e r p r i s e s

P ty . L C o u r t i n t h e td . 1978 ATPR 17 ,956 , bound by t he p rac t i ce of the Supreme

area w h e r e t h e t r i a l t a k e s place.

The malnstream of a u t h o r i t y o n t h e pract ice t o b e a d o p t e d is

c l e a r . I n The Union Bank o f A u s t r a l l a L i m i t e d v. Puddy 1 9 4 9 VLR l

242, Mr. Jus t ice F u l l a g a r e x a m i n e d t h e p r a c t i c e a d o p t e d i n t h e

United Kingdom, i n V i c t o r i a a n d i n o t h e r s t a t e s o f A u s t r a l l a .

3 .

I

A t page 244 h i s Honour s a i d :

". . .I t h i n k it mus t be t aken t o be now t r i a l s by e s t a b l i s h e d a s a

g e n e r a l r u l e o f p rac t ice t h a t , i n a Judge

w i t h o u t a j u r y , a d e c i s i o n will n o t b e g i v e n o n a

s u b m i s s i o n o f e i t h e r c h a r a c t e r u n l e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t

a n n o u n c e s t h a t h e c a l l s no ev idence . "

H i s Honour was r e f e r r i n g t o s u b m i s s i o n s t h a t t h e r e i s no ev idence

t o s u p p o r t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s case o r t h a t t h e r e i s some ev idence

b u t t h e C o u r t s h o u l d n o t a c t upon it. H i s Honour went on t o

s a y , a t p a g e 2 4 5 , t h a t :

" . . . a l t h o u g h t h e g e n e r a l r u l e a p p e a r s now t o b e well

e s t a b l i s h e d ,	i t	is	l i k e	a l l	r u l e s	o f	p r a c t i c e ,	n o t
i n f l e x i b l e . "

His Honour r e f e r r e d t o t h e s t a t e m e n t o f Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy,

w i t h whom t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e S i r Edmund H e r r i n g a g r e e d , i n

Humphrey v. C o l l i e r 1 9 4 6 VLR 391, a t p a g e 4 0 2 , t h a t :

' I . . . s u c h s h o u l d b e t h e g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e is I t h i n k v e r y

d e s i r a b l e b u t I d o n o t t h i n k t h e p r e s i d i n g Judge shou ld

be l e f t w i t h o u t d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e matter. There might

b e o c c a s i o n s when a s t r i c t a d h e r e n c e t o it would r e s u l t

i n u n n e c e s s a r y l o s s of time and money."

Mr. J u s t i c e F u l l a g a r a d d e d two o b s e r v a t i o n s of h i s own t o t h e

a u t h o r i t i e s w h i c h h e h a d c i t ed . A t p a g e s 2 4 5 - 6 , h e s a i d :

" I n t h e someth ing may f i r s t p l a c e , a s n a t u r e Goddard L J p o i n t e d o u t ,

t u r n o n t h e o f t h e c a s e i t s e l f .

F o r i n s t a n c e , i n a c t i o n s f o r n e g l i g e n c e it is commonly

n o t t h e d i r e c t e f f ec t o f e v i d e n c e b u t t h e i n f e r e n c e s

t h a t may be drawn from it t h a t are i n i s s u e , a n d t h e

c a s e s show t h a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n s h o u l d b e e x e r c i s e d w i t h

t h e g r e a t e s t c a u t i o n . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h e r e , as i n

t h e c a s e b e f o r e me, f r a u d i s a l l e g e d , i t may o f t e n b e

wrong t o s u g g e s t t h a t a p a r t y s h o u l d s u b m i t h i m s e l f t o

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n b e f o r e i t is s e e n t h a t t h e r e i s

r e a l l y some e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t him. t h e I n s e c o n d

p l a c e , i t would seem t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e

d i s c r e t i o n m u s t g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e a n e s t i m a t i n g o f

p r o b a b i l i t i e s . If I a c c e d e t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n made t o

me, I may s a v e t h e p a r t i e s a g r e a t d e a l o f time and

expense , o r I may cause them much g r e a t e r e x p e n s e a n d

d e l a y i n t h e e v e n t o f a new t r i a l b e i n g o r d e r e d . I n

o r d e r t o assess t h e s e p r o b a b i l i t i e s , i t seems t o me

4.

t h a t it m u s t g e n e r a l l y b e n e c e s s a r y t o f o r m some

preliminary e s t i m a t e o f t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e r u l i n g a s

t o w h e t h e r t h e submiss ion i s t o b e e n t e r t a l n e d w i t h o u t

e l e c t l o n . "

The g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e a d u m b r a t e d by h i s Honour h a s b e e n c l e a r l y

s t a t e d i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom I n Alexander v. Rayson (1936) 1 KB

1 6 9 and i n L a u r i e v. Raglan Bui lding Company Limi ted ( 1 9 4 2 ) 1 KB

152 . I t h a s b e e n e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e High Cour t o f Aus t ra l ia by

Mr. J u s t i c e N i n d e y e r i n J o n e s v. Dunkel 101 CLR 298 a t p.313 and ,

more r e c e n t l y , by Mason a n d J a c o b s JJ i n Stevenson v. Barham 136

CLR 1 9 0 a t pp.202-3. There, their Honours , w i t h whom i n t h l s

r e s p e c t t h e C h i e f Justice and Mr. J u s t i c e S t e p h e n a g r e e d , s a i d :

"We would n o t a p p l y t o o b ~ e c t i o n s t o j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e

g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d b e c a l l e d u p o n t o

e l e c t w h e t h e r or n o t h e w h e r e b y w i l l c a l l e v i d e n c e b e f o r e h e i s

p e r m i t t e d t o s u b m i t t h a t t h e r e i s no c a s e t o a n s w e r .

The t r a d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e a d e f e n d a n t i s

p e r m i t t e d t o t a k e a p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n t o

j u r i s d i c t i o n and compel led t o a r g u e it w i t h o u t b e i n g p u t t o h i s

e l e c t i o n i s q u i t e a t o d d s w i t h a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a

defendant should be t o e lec t b e f o r e t a k i n g a n

o b j e c t i o n t o j u r i s d i c t i o n . Even t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t

a d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d b e c a l l e d upon t o e l e c t b e f o r e

s u b m i t t i n g t h a t t h e r e is n o c a s e t o a n s w e r m u s t g i v e

way t o p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The d i s c r e t i o n o f Younq a

c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c a s e a t a n e a r l y s t a g e , when

a p p r o p r i a t e , h a s b e e n r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t e d . ( S e e

v. Rank (1950) 2 KB 510; Ramsden v. Ramsden (1954) 1

WLR 1105 a t p.1107; Union Bank of A u s t r a l i a L t d . v.

Puddy	( 1 9 4 9 ) VLR	2 4 2 ;	Sampson	Edwards	v.	( 1 9 4 9 )	VLR
6 ) ."

The p r a c t l c e a l s o i s fo l lowed i n New S o u t h Wales. See Supreme

Cour t P rocedure N e w South Wales by A.V. R l t c h i e , n o t e 3 4 . 8 . 1 .

I p r o p o s e a u t h o r i t l e s . t o f o l l o w t h e p r a c t i c e e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e s e

I t i s n o t a p r a c t i c e b a s e d u p o n h i s t o r i c a l l

a c c i d e n t b u t r a t h e r upon a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d l n g a s t o t h e p r o p e r

5.

manner i n which l u s t i c e i s a c h i e v e d a t a t r i a l . G e n e r a l l y ,

j u s t i c e 1s n o t d o n e b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t a t e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

b e f o r e a l l t h e p a r t i e s h a v e c l o s e d t h e i r c a s e . I t i s

i n c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e j u d g e t o f o r m c o n c l u s i o n s o f f a c t d u r i n g t h e

course o f t h e t r i a l : t h e d r a w i n g o f i n f e r e n c e s f r o m s p a r s e

e v i d e n c e i s o f t e n a v e r y d i f f i c u l t a n d f a l l i b l e m e t h o d o f

a r r i v i n g a t t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r : a r g u m e n t o n t h e submiss ion

o f t e n d e l a y s s u b m i s s i o n t h e h e a r i n g ; a n d t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e .

a n d p e r h a p s a p p e a l o n t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r may

f u r t h e r d e l a y it. G e n e r a l l y , i t i s b e t t e r t h a t a j u d g e s h o u l d

come t o h i s c o n c l u s i o n s o f f a c t o n l y a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

a n d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f g i v i n g j u d g m e n t . I n t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e

t h e d i s c r e t i o n n o t t o p u t a d e f e n d a n t t o a n e l e c t i o n h a s been

e x e r c i s e d , t h e r e h a s g e n e r a l l y b e e n a sound reason why j u s t i c e

would bes t be done by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s u b m i s s i o n a n d , i f a l l o w i n g

i t , by b r l n g i n g t h e a c t i o n t o a premature end. Such a c a s e may

a r i s e w h e r e t h e i s s u e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f a

s u b t l e s t a t e of f a c t s o r w h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f i s

so p a l p a b l y i n a d e q u a t e t h a t it would appear to be an unnecessary

w a s t e o f time and money t o c o n t i n u e t h e t r i a l . T h e r e a r e o t h e r

s u c h c a s e s w h e r e t h e d l s c r e t i o n s h o u l d b e e x e r c i s e d . I d o n o t

v l s h c i r c u m s c r i b e

t o d i s c r e t i o n t h e d i s c r e t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e

s h o u l d n o t b e so e x e r c i s e d u n l e s s j u s t i ce t o t h e

p a r t i e s would t h e r e b y b e a c h i e v e d .

I n t h e d e f e n d a n t s , f i v e o f p r e s e n t c a s e , f o u r m a i n a l l e g a t i o n s a r e made a g a i n s t t h e

whom a r e t h e p r i n c l p a l b a k e r s o f b r e a d i n t h e

6.

A u s t r a l i a n Capi ta l T e r r i t o r y , a n d o n e o f whom, Mr. D a l l a s , i s

a l l e g e d , i n s u b s t a n c e , t o h a v e a i d e d a n d a b e t t e d t h e m . The

f i r s t a l l e g a t i o n , I n p a r a g r a p h 13 (a ) o f t h e amended s t a t e m e n t o f

claim, r e a d s : 0

"13. (a ) P r i o r t o , o n a n d s u b s e q u e n t t o 1st October

1974 P7eston, All ied and Coggan and each of them were

par t ies t o a n a r r a n g e m e n t or unde r s t and ing whereby

b r e a d w o u l d b e s u p p l i e d b y s u c h d e f e n d a n t s t o - r e t a i l e r s

i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n Capi ta l T e r r i t o r y a t who lesa l e p r l ces

( b e f o r e d e d u c t l o n o f d i s c o u n t s a n d r e b a t e s ) a g r e e d u p o n

from tlme t o time."

T h e s e c o n d a l l e g a t i o n , i n p a r a g r a p h 1 6 ( a ) of t h e a m e n d e d

s t a t e m e n t o f claim, r e a d s :

" 1 6 . F u r t h e r or i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e :

( a ) I n or a b o u t December 1976 Weston, Allied, Coggan

and t he Og i lv i e s and each o f t hem made a n a r r a n g e m e n t

o r e n t e r e d i n t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h e r e b y W e s t o n ,

A l l i ed , Cossan and the Ocl i lv ies and each of them aareed a ~~

t o i n c r e a s e by 2 c e n t s - ( b e f o r e d e d u c t i o n o f d i s c o u n t s

a n d r e b a t e s ) t h e r e a b o u t s o n a n d f r o m 3 0 t h D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 6 o r

t h e w h o l e s a l e pr lces a t which bread would

b e s u p p l i e d b y s u c h d e f e n d a n t s t o r e t a i l e r s i n t h e

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . "

The t h i r d a l l e g a t i o n , i n p a r a g r a p h 1 7 ( a ) o f t h e amended s t a t e m e n t

o f claim, r e a d s :

"17 . Fu r the r o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t l v e :

(a ) I n or a b o u t May o r J u n e 1977 V7eston, A l l i e d ,

Coggan and t h e O g i l v i e s a n d e a c h o f t h e m made a n

a r r angemen t o r e n t e r e d i n t o a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h e r e b y

W e s t o n , A l l i e d , C o g g a n a n d t h e O g i l v i e s a n d each o f

t h e m a g r e e d t o i n c r e a s e b y 1 c e n t ( b e f o r e d e d u c t i o n o f

d i s c o u n t s a n d r e b a t e s ) o n a n d f r o m 2 n d J u n e 1 9 7 7 t h e

w h o l e s a l e p r i c e s a t which bread would be suppl ied g

r e t a l l e r s b y	s u c h	d e f e n d a n t s	i n	t h e	A u s t r a l i m	Capi ta l
T e r r i t o r y . "

The f o u r t h a l l e g a t i o n i s t h a t , a t v a r l o u s s t a g e s o n a n d a f t e r 30

December 1 9 7 6 , t h e p a r t i e s g a v e e f f e c t t o t h e t h r e e a r r a n g e m e n t s

o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s w h i c h I h a v e m e n t i o n e d . M o s t t h e o f

7.

a l l e g a t i o n s a re made u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 5 o f t h e Trade P r a c t i c e s Act

1 9 7 4 a s i t a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e amendment which took e f f e c t on 1

J u l y 1 9 7 7 . Some o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s w h i c h r e l a t e t o g i v i n g

e f f e c t t o t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s or unde r s t and ings ex tend beyond l J u l y

1977 and a re made unde r s ec t ion 45 o f t he Act a s i t now s t a n d s .

The e v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s b e e n g i v e n o n b e h a l f o f t h e p l a i n t i f f is

spar se. To e s t a b l i s h t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s or u n d e r s t a n d i n g s ,

c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t l y r e l i e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y u p o n

e v i d e n c e a s t o p a r a l l e l conduc t .

T h e d e f e n d a n t b a k e r s s e l l b r e a d a t t h e w h o l e s a l e l e v e l t o

r e t a i l e r s . T h e e v i d e n c e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t o t h i s p o i n t of tlme

t h a t e a c h o f s u c h d e f e n d a n t s p r o v i d e d t o e a c h o f t h e r e t a i l e r s

wi th wh ich i t o r t h e y d e a l a recommended r e t a i l p r i ce l i s t and

t h a t t h e w h o l e s a l e w h o l e s a l e pr ice c h a r g e d f o r t h e b r e a d s o l d a t t h e

l e v e l was c a l c u l a t e d b y a l l o w i n g d i s c o u n t s a n d r e b a t e s

upon t h a t recommended r e t a i l price. I t is an ag reed f a c t t h a t ,

o n 3 0 D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 6 , t h e f i r s t , s e c o n d , f o u r t h a n d f i f t h

d e f e n d a n t s a n d , o n 4 J a n u a r y 1 9 7 7 , t h e t h i r d d e f e n d a n t , r a i s e d

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e recommended r e t a i l p r ices b y t w o c e n t s per l o a f

o f b read . I t i s a f u r t h e r a g r e e d f a c t t h a t , o n 2 June 1977 , a l l

t h e b a k e r d e f e n d a n t s r a i s e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e recommended r e t a i l

p r i ces b y o n e c e n t p e r l o a f . I t is a n a g r e e d f a c t t h a t n o

a l t e r a t i o n t o t h e i n c r e a s e . d i s c o u n t s a n d r e b a t e s a l l o w e d w a s made by

r e a s o n o f	t h i s
C o u n s e l	f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f r e l i e s upon i n f e r e n c e s t o b e d r a w n f r o m

.. . .

8 .

t h i s c o n d u c t a n d a l s o upon i n f e r e n c e s t o b e d r a w n f r o m p r e s s

r e l e a s e s i s s u e d s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e recommended

r e t a l l p r i c e s by t h e d e f e n d a n t Mr. D a l l a s , who, i n t h e p r e s s

r e l e a s e s , s a i d t h a t h e was speak ing on beha l f o f t h e baking

i n d u s t r y t h e r e l e a s e s a r e p r e s e n t l y n o t i n A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . T h e s e p r e s s

e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s o t h e r

t h a n t h e f i r s t d e f e n d a n t , a n d Hr. D a l l a s ; b u t t h i s is n o t t o s a y

t h a t , i f f u r t h e r e v l d e n c e i s g i v e n , t h e y will n o t b e p r o v e d t o

h a v e b e e n e v i d e n c e a u t h o r i s e d b y o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s a n d a d m i t t e d i n t o

a g a i n s t t h e m . P r e s e n t l y , e x p l a n a t i o n n o t h e o f

p a r a l l e l c o n d u c t h a s b e e n g i v e n a n d t h e r e is no f a c t e s t a b l i s h e d

w h i c h , i n i t s e l f , e x p l a i n s t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e recommended r e t a i l

p r i c e s on the days men t ioned .

I n my view, i t w o u l d b e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e s

i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e .upon t h e ev idence which is a t p r e s e n t l y

b e f o r e t h e C o u r t . To come t o a c o n c l u s i o n a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e ,

would i n v o l v e t h e d r a w i n g o f i n f e r e n c e s f r o m m e a g r e f a c t s , f a c t s

w h i c h a r g u a b l y c a l l f o r an exp lana t ion and wh lch have no t been

e x p l a i n e d . I d o n o t w i s h t o l n d l c a t e t h a t I have formed any

view t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d or t h a t n e c e s s a r i l y a n y

i n f e r e n c e will b e d r a w n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s i f t h e y a r e n o t

e x p l a i n e d . I have view no on t h a t m a t t e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , I

t h i n k t h a t Mr. Ivlasterman m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y p u t a n a r g u m e n t t h a t

t h e i n c r e a s e s w h i c h t o o k p l a c e on t h e p a r t i c u l a r d a y s c a l l f o r a n

e x p l a n a t i o n . I am f u r t h e r o f t h e v i e w t h a t , t h e i f f a c t s

a l l e g e d I n t h e s t a t e m e n t o f c l a i m a r e e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e p l a l n t i f f

I 9.

will h a v e a n a r g u a b l e case o n t h e law. I h a v e n o t a t t e m p t e d t o

form any conc luded view a s t o w h e t h e r , i f t h o s e f a c t s a r e

e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e p l a i n t i f f will succeed . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t , a t

t h e p r e s e n t a r g u a b l e	time,	t h a t I	t h i n k	t h a t	t h e	p l a i n t i f f	will	h a v e	a n
0

case.

I n my v i e w , j u s t l c e e l e c t whether w o u l d b e s t b e d o n e b y c a l l i n g u p o n t h e

d e f e n d a n t s t o o r n o t t o c a l l e v i d e n c e so t h a t t h e

submiss ion of no case t o a n s w e r , i f It i s made , p roceeds upon the

w h o l e o f t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h i s t o b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n t h l s

a c t i o n .

Mr. C a l l a w a y , c o u n s e l f o r t h e f o u r t h a n d f i f t h d e f e n d a n t s

s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s e x c e p t i o n a l l y i n c o m p l e t e . I

a g r e e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e is m e a g r e b u t , i n my view, i t 1s n o t so

p o o r t h a t I t l e a d s me t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s

m o s t u n l i k e l y s u b m i t t e d e s t a b l i s h t o a c a s e . Mr. C a l l a w a y f u r t h e r

t h a t , i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f my d i s c r e t i o n , I s h o u l d d e a l

w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s case a s was done by Elr. Jus t ice

F i s h e r i n t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s C o m m l s s l o n v. N i c h o l a s E n t e r p r i s e s

P t y . L t d . , c l t e d a b o v e . H o w e v e r , i n t h a t case, h i s Honour f e l t

t h a t h e J u d i c i a r y Act was bound by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 7 9 o f t h e

1973 t o f o l l o w t h e pract ice w h i c h h e u n d e r s t o o d t o

p r e v a i l i n t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n S u p r e m e C o u r t . I n my view,

t h e r e i s n o s o u n d r e a s o n f o r f o l l o w i n g t h a t p r a c t i c e i n a n

i n s t a n c e w h e r e I am n o t s o bound, and I t h i n k t h a t I s h o u l d

f o l l o w t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f a u t h o r i t y w h i c h I h a v e a l r e a d y

I

10.

mentioned.

Mr. C a l l a w a y s u b m i t t e d t h a t I s h o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e

p r o b a b l e l e n g t h a n d e x p e n s e o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s i f it r u n s i t s

0

f u l l c o u r s e , a n d I have done s o , b u t I am o f t h e v i e w t h a t t h l s

i s n o t a case where I c a n s a y p r o c e e d s . t h a t u n n e c e s s a r y t i m e a n d e x p e n s e

would be incur red i f t h e t r i a l I n d e e d , I t h i n k t h a t ,

i f I e l e c t i o n t o b e w e r e t o d e a l w i t h t h e s u b m i s s i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g a n

made, unnecessary t ime and expense could be wasted

i n t h e h e a r i n g a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h a t s u b m i s s i o n .

Mr. C a l l a w a y s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h i s is a n a c t i o n f o r a p e n a l t y a n d

a k i n t o a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n a n d t h a t I s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e

c r i m i n a l p r a c t i c e . I t h i n k t h a t I s h o u l d n o t d o s o , b u t I do

t a k e i n t o c i v i l a c t i o n , a c c o u n t a s a m a t t e r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d t h a t , i n t h i s

a b r e a c h o f t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t 1 9 7 4 i s a l l e g e d

and t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n i s o n e w h i c h c a l l s f o r a s t a n d a r d o f

p r o o f c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n made.

I t i s F i s h e r i n T r a d e P r a c t l c e s s u f f i c i e n t f o r me t o r e f e r t o w h a t was s a i d by Mr. J u s t i c e

Commission v. N i c h o l a s E n t e r p r l s e s P t y .

L t d . , 1 9 7 9 ATPR 1 8 , 3 3 3 , a t p a g e s 1 8 , 3 5 2 - 3 .

Mr. C a l l a w a y f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t , a s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e i s

b a s e d u p o n c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , ~t will work a c o n s i d e r a b l e

h a r d s h i p t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o r e q u i r e them t o b e p u t on t h e i r

e l e c t l o n b e c a u s e , i f p u t t o t h e i r e l e c t i o n , a v e r y f i n e j u d g m e n t

will h a v e t o b e made. If d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. .

11.

i n w h i c h t h e i n c r e a s e s i n pr ice came a b o u t is g i v e n , t h e n a t u r e

of t h e case will c h a n g e f r o m o n e i n w h i c h i n f e r e n c e s a r e drawn

from sparse f a c t s t o o n e i n w h i c h d i r e c t e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e

e v e n t s w h i c h e l e c t i o n will o c c u r r e d 1 s c o n s i d e r e d . I t i s t r u e t h a t a n

0

be a matter of v e r y c o n s i d e r a b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e t o

t h e d e f e n d a n t s b u t I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t t h a t is a p a r t i c u l a r

r e a s o n why t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e p u t u p o n t h e i r e l e c t i o n . I n my

v iew, i t is p r e f e r a b l e t h a t e v i d e n c e b e o b t a i n e d f r o m p e r s o n s who

h a v e d l r e c t i n f e r e n c e s b e d r a w n f r o m m e a g r e p u b l i c l y k n o w l e d g e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t s r a t h e r t h a n t h a t

known f a c t s .

Mr. M o r l i n g , c o u n s e l f o r t h e s e c o n d d e f e n d a n t a d o p t e d t h e

s u b m i s s i o n s o f Mr. C a l l a r r a y b u t f u r t h e r s u b m l t t e d t h a t I s h o u l d

g i v e s i g n l f l c a n c e t o t h e p r o v i s l o n s o f s e c t i o n 155 o f t h e T r a d e

Practices A c t 1 9 7 4 wh ich p rov ide a means by whlch the Trade

P r a c t i c e s C o m m i s s i o n t h e p l a l n t i f f may o b t a i n e v l d e n c e o f

r e l e v a n t f ac t s . I t h a s b e e n p u t w i t h some v i g o u r t h a t c o u n s e l

f o r t h e s e c t i o n p l a i n t l f f h a s n o t t e n d e r e d a n y r e s p o n s e s made t o a n y

1 5 5 n o t i c e s w h l c h m a y h a v e b e e n r e l e v a n t t o t h e

d e f e n d a n t s . I h a v e t a k e n t h a t m a t t e r i n t o a c c o u n t b u t I t h l n k

t h a t i t is a m a t t e r w h i c h h a s m o r e s i g n i f i c a n c e o n t h e q u e s t i o n

whether or n o t a p p e a r a n y a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e s h o u l d b e d r a w n f r o m what

m i g h t o t h e r w i s e t o b e u n e x p l a l n e d f ac t s . However, I have

fo rmed no pa r t i cu la r v i ew a s t o i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h a t respect .

C o u n s e l f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s o t h e r w l s e i n g e n e r a l a d o p t e d t h e

p o i n t s p u t b y Mr. Cal laway.

1 2 .

T h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t some d e f e n d a n t s is weaker t h a n t h e e v i d e n c e

a g a i n s t o t h e r s . However, f u r t h e r i f e v i d e n c e i s g i v e n , t h e

s t r e n g t h o f t h e e v i d e n c e a g a l n s t a p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t may wel l

a l t e r . I n M e n z i e s v . A u s t r a l i a n I r o n & Stee l Ltd . & H i l l 52

NSWSR 62 and Hummerstone Leary v. (1921) 2 KB 6 6 4 , it was

e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , i n s u c h a c l r c u m s t a n c e , i t i s u n d e s i r a b l e t h a t

one or m o r e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d from t h e a c t i o n

p r i o r t o t h e r e c e p t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e .

I t h i n k t h a t I need say n o t h i n g f u r t h e r a b o u t t h e f z c t s or a b o u t

t h e s u b m i s s i o n s o f law which were pu t and I t h i n k i t would be

u n d e s i r a b l e f o r me t o d o so. On t h e w h o l e , I am o f t h e v i e w

t h a t j u s t i c e will b e s t b e d o n e i f I r e q u l r e t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a t

t h i s s t a g e , t o e l e c t whether or n o t t h e y will a d d u c e e v i d e n c e i n

t h e t r l a l .

l

I