Trade Practices Commission v T.N.T. Management Pty Ltd

[1979] FCA 68

I N THE FEDERAL C03RT dF AUSTI~~$L,I~) ---.

1

IVEW SOUTIi WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)	---p-	C . No .W! o f 1978
GEi'TERP.L DIVISION

BETIVEEbT: - TRADE PR4CTICES COIQIISSION

P l a i n t i f f

AND : T. N. T. Y,UiNAGZ?TENT PTY. LIT~JITZD

F i r s t D e f en6znt

BRAPIBLES HOLDIXGS LIMITED

S e c o n d D e f e n d a n t

YiYb?E NICKLESS LITdIITED

T h l r d D e f e n d a n t

YOTJNGS TPLNSPORT PTY. LIDIITED

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

ANSETT TRP.NSPORT INDUSTSIES

(OPER~TIONS) PTY. LIT4ITED

F i f t h D e f e n d a n t

EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED

Sixth D e f e n d e n t

ASSOCIATED STEA!4SHIPS PTY. LTD.

Seventh D e f e n d a n t

IPEC HOLDINGS LIMITED

E i g h t h D e f e n d a n t

INTERSTATE P!.RCEL EXFREES CO.

PTY. LIMI1'ED -

N i n t h D e f e n d a n t

Coram: F r a n k i J.

4 Ju ly 1979

S y d n e y

REAE9FS FaTi JUDGiTENT

- --p

FMiKI J.

In t h i s m e t t e r the T r a d e P i - a c t i c e s C o r m l s s i o n ( " t h e

- 2 -

p l a i n t i f f u ) seeks pecur~iary pena l t i e s under ss. 76 and 77

of t h e Trade Prac t ices Act 1974 ( " the ActH) and in junct ions

under s.80 of t h e Act aga ins t n ine defenda.nts. The

second defendant, Brambles Holdings Llmited, ( " ~ r a m b l e s " ) ,

i s seeking t o have c e r t a i n paragraphs of t h e statement of

claim s t ruck out and is supported i n t h i s by a number of

o ther defendants.

Broadly t h e statement of claim a l l eges t h a t ,

p r i o r t o t h e amendment of s.45 of t h e Act from 1 Ju ly 1977,

t h e defendants, o r c e r t a i n of them, including Brambles,

entered i n t o t h r ee understandings and/or made th r ee

arrangements i n breach of s . 45 (2 ) ( a ) . I t i s a l leged t h a t

t h e understandings were entered i n t o and/or t h e arrangements

made on 12 February 1976 (par . 21 ) 20 May 1976 (par . 27) and

4 August 1976 (par . 33).

The statement of claim a l s o a l l e g e s i n pars . 26,

32 and 38 that Brambles gave e f f e c t t o t h e arrangements

and/or understandings a l leged i n pars . 21, 27 and 33

respec t ive ly and i n par . 39 a cont inuat ion of t h i s conduct

is a l leged.

Brambles sought t o have pars . 20(d) , 24(2) ,

25(2) , 26, 30(2) , 31(2) , 32, 36(2) , 37(2) , 38 and 39

s t ruck out and r e l i e d mainly upon Order 20 r u l e 29 of t h e

High Court 2u les and argued t h a t those paragraphs tended

t o pre judice , enbarrass o r delay t h e f a i r t r i a l of t h e

ac t ion . Al ternat ively Brambles r e l i e d upon Order 26

rule 18 or Order 63 rule 2 and sought a stay if rellef

by way of striklng out was not granted.

No argument vas addressed to par.20(d) so I

need not deal with it.

Pars. 24 and 25 set out the provisions of

s.45(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act after the amendment from 1 July 1977 and allege that giving effect to the arrangement and/or understanding alleged in par. 21

constitutes a contravention of the Act but no allegation

is there made that effect was given to the alleged

arrangement and/or understanding by any defendant. Par.

26 alleges that effect was given to the arrangement and/or

understanding alleged in par.21 by the first five defendants

and to some extent particularises the way in which it is

alleged that took place. No date is provided in par. 26

and it is to be read as alleging a contravention both

before and after 1 July 1977.

Pars. 28, 29, 30 and 31 correspond to pars. 22, 23, 24 and 25 and make slmilar allegations in relation to

the alleged arrangement and/or understanding of 20 May 1976. agreement and/or understanding of 20 May 1976 alleged In par. 27.

Pars. 34, 35, 36 and 37 also correspond to pars.

22, 23, 24 and 25 but relate to the arrangement and/or

understanding of 4 A u ~ s t 1976 alleged in par. 33. Par.

- 4 -

38 corresponds with par . 26 but r e l a t e s t o t h e cgreement

and/or understanding of 4 August 1976 a l leged i n par . 33.

I n substance t h e statement of claim a l l eges :

( a ) I n pars . 22, 28 and 34 breaches of s .45(2) (a )

by t h e making of t h e arrangements and/or t h e

en te r ing l n t o t h e understandings a l leged i n

pars . 21, 27 and 33 respect ively .

(b ) I n pars . 26, 32 and 38 breaches of s .45(2) ( a )

before 1 Ju ly 1977 by giving e f f e c t t o t h e

arrangements and/or understandings a l leged i n

pars . 21, 27 and 33 respect ively .

( C ) I n pars . 26, 32 and 38 breaches of s . 45 (2 ) ( a )

(i) and ( i i ) a f t e r 1 Ju ly 1977 by givlng e f f e c t

t o t h e arrangements and/or understandings a l leged

i n pars . 21, 27 and 33 respect ively .

Pa r t i cu l a r s i n answer t o a reques t f o r p a r t i c u l a r s

of pa rs . 26, 32, 38 and 39 of t h e statement of claim were

given by l e t t e r of 11 December 1978. They were t h a t t h e

plaintiff would r e l y upon two l e t t e r s from a company

r e f e r r ed t o i n t h e statement of claim as "Tradestock" t o

a company ca l l ed Brambles Limited of 15 June 1976 and

29 June 1976 respec t ive ly and upon a telephone conversation

between a gentleman sa id t o represent Tradestock and one

sa id t o represen t Brambles Holdings Limlted, the second

defendant, of about 27 July 1976. The two l e t t e r s i n

e f f e c t asked Brambles Limited t o meec Tradestock o r supply

- 5 -

c e r t a i n quotes t o it. Brambles d l d n o t appear t o r e l y

m t h e present app l ica t ion upon the d i f fe rence i n name

between I1Brambles Holdings Llmitedn and "Brambles Limited".

The p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e conversation were t h a t i n it t h e

represen ta t ive of Brambles had sa ld t h a t " the secondnaned

defendant lvould no t dea l wi th agents o r brokers and t h a t

it wanted t o dea l with c l i e n t s , t h e u se r s of f r e i g h t

forwardmg se rv ices d i r e c t l y n .

The bas i s of Brambles1 argument was t h a t no

p a r t i c u l a r s had been given of t h e a l l ega t ion t h a t it had

given e f f e c t t o an a l l eged arrangement and/or understanding

a f t e r 1 Ju ly 1977. Reference was made without object ion

by both t h e p l a i n t i f f and Brambles t o Tradestock Pty.

Limited v. T.N.T. (Management) Pty. Ltd. (1978) 17 A.L.R. 257, c e r t a i n of t h e t r a n s c r i p t t he re in and a l e t t e r from

t h e s o l i c i t o r s f o r Brambles Indus t r i es Limlted of 10

February 1978. The p a r t i c u l a r s given regarding pars . 26,

32 and 38 a l so included t h e sentence "Further d e t a i l s

a r e matters of evidence." By l e t t e r of 31 May 1979 t h e

p l a i n t i f f s a id it did not r e l y upon any mat-ters of f a c t

i n support o f t h e matters pleaded i n pars . 26, 32, 38 o r

39 o ther than those pleaded o r s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r r ed t o i n

t h e l e t t e r of 11 December 1978 but t h a t it reserved the

r i g h t t o supplement i ts p a r t i c u l a r s .

Before me the plaintiff r e l i e d upon t h e presumption

of continuance and pointed out t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r s

contained an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Brambles s a i d , on o r about

27 Ju ly 19'76, t h a t it vrould not dea l with agents o r brokers.

- 6 -

I note t h a t par . 33 a l leged a f u r t h e r arrangement and/or

understanding of 4 August 1976.

For t h e reasons that I have s t a t e d pars . 26, 32

and 38 a r e a l l r e f e r ab l e t o conduct both before and a f t e r

1 Ju ly 1977 and so I see no reason t o s t r i k e them out

whether o r no t adequate p a r t i c u l a r s a r e glven w l t l l r e spec t

t o t h e period e r t e r 1 Ju ly 1977. If I s t ruck those

paragraphs out no a l l e g a t i o n of any breach a t any time by

giving e f f e c t t o any of t h e a l leged arrangements and/or

vnderstandings would remain. The pleadings r e l a t e t o claims

both t o a pecuniary penal ty and t o an in junct ion. It may

be t h a t pa rs . 26, 32 and 38 could be c l z r i f i e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y

i n regard t o t h e da t e t o which they apply, but no argument

on t h i s aspect was addressed t o me.

These proceedings were conducted upon t h e bas i s t h a t ,

even a t t h i s s t age , I was e n t i t l e d t o read t h e p a r t i c u l a r s

with t h e statement of claim and s o i t d i d no t become necessary

f o r me t o decide whether t h i s is so.

I can see no reason t o s t r i k e out pa rs . 24(2) ,

25(2), 30(2) , 31(2) , 36(2 ) o r 37(2). These paragraphs

only s e t out matters of law but no object ion was r a i s ed on

t h a t ground. Par . 39 i s r e f e r ab l e t o t h e app l ica t ion f o r

an in junct ion. I was n o t r e f e r r ed t o any au thor i ty on t h e

proper approach t o t h e considerat ion of a paragraph of

t h i s nature. Hovever i n view of t h e provisions of s .80(4)

of t h e Act it may well be t h a t no a l l ega t ion i n t h e na ture

of par . 39 i s necessary. No argument was addressed t o t h i s

question. I see no reason t o s t r i k e out par . 39.

It should be mentioned t h a t t h e High Court Rules

provide i n Order 20 r u l e 8 t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s of claim

s h a l l not be ordered t o be del ivered before defence unless

they a r e necessary o r de s i r ab l e t o enable t h e p l a i n t i f f

t o plead o r ought, f o r any o ther spec i a l reason, t o be

so del ivered. I n f a c t Brambles commenced proceedings

f o r particulars i n Karch 1979 but although t h a t matter

has been mentioned on t h r ee occasions, by consent, it has

been stood over genera l ly with l i b e r t y t o e i t h e r pa r ty

t o r e s t o r e .

I can see no reason why Brambles should not be

required t o plead t o t h e statement of claim. If it then

wishes t o pursue i t s request f o r p a r t i c u l a r s it would

seem t o me t o be open f o r it t o do so and t h a t matter could

be considered. I n add i t ion t h e p l a i n t i f f may wish t o

amend i t s p a r t i c u l a r s o r add t o them. The funct ion o f

p a r t i c u l a r s i s t o l i m i t t h e i s sues t o be inves t iga ted a t

t h e t r i a l and of course t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be bound by

its p a r t i c u l a r s a t t h e hear ing i n t h e usual way.

I dismiss the app l ica t ion .

T c e ~ t 7 . f ~ l!l?.t th: S a:ld thc 5'.*

~- - i - c r . d iny ; pagcs a rc R true copy of the

TCBDOES for Zud~nellt hereln o f hls lionour

-

Justice t ,?Ad , . 1

I

?l< Li p c, c.7 , ,\ - L q

Assoclats

Dated : h-, 1 C(?'\