Trade Practices Commission v T.N.T. Management Pty Ltd (No. 1)

[1981] FCA 273

Subpoenas duces tecum - Subpoenas e rved on ind iv idua ls no t

par t ies t o a c t i o n - Summons to set subpoenas as lde as too wlde

- No e v i d e n c e l n d i v i d u a l s SQ a s s o c i a t e d wi th d e f e n d a n t s i n

a c t l o n t h a t h e y c o u l d a d o p t csmpany' S Immunity from se l f -

i n c r j m i n a t i o n - N o e v l d e n c e i n d l v i d u a l s e r v a n t s of company

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

documents "recordlng or ev idencing" names o€ employers ove r

f e u r y e a r p e r i o d - subpoenas too w l d e I n r e q u i r m q p r o d u c t l o n

Q € documents "recordlng or ev idenclng" names of t r u s t e e s of

superannuat lon	funds	t o w h i c h	i n d i v i d u a l s	c o n t r l b u t e d	i n	f o u r
yea r pe r iod .

T?.IDC PRACTICES	CQMMISSIQN	V. T . X . T .	MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED t
__	0.7s.

N.S.W. No. G 4 4 of 1978

Roven C . J .

13 September 1981

Sydney.

I N T H E F E D E R A L COUZT O F A U S T R A L I A ) 1

NEW SOUTH WALES D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y ) Eo. G 4 4 of 1978

)

GEYE&I.L D I V I S I O N 1

BETICEM :

TZYDE PRACTICZS COI1MISSIOLJ

P l a l n t l f f

AND :

-

BRJAMELZS E O L D I X C - S L I X I T E D

Second D e f e n d a n t

ANSETT TK1MSPOP.T IWNSF.!IZS

(O?EPL?TIONS)	F T Y .	L I P I I T E D
F l f t h Defendant

EXPXESS CREIC-ET FT'.'. LIE!ITED

S 1 : c t h Defendant

ASSOCIATCD STEA'lSiiIPS	P T Y .
L I ~ . I I T C D

Seven th D e f e n d a n t

I P C C U O L D I N G S L I > ! I T E D

E l q k t h Defendan t

Ii 'YZ:I?STATE PAI'\CZL EXPRESS C O .

P T Y . L I M I T E D

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

O R D C ?

E o w e n C . J.

18 September 1351.

Sydney.

I X T P E FEDERAL COURT O F A U S T R A L I A )

)

NE!J SCUT11 WALES D I S T R I C T R E G J S T R Y ) No. G 4 4 of 1978

1

GE?TEPL'.L D I V I S I O N )

BFLV*lBLES HOLDIXGS LIXITED

Second C e f e n d a n t

EWYNE XIC!CLESS LIi!ITED

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

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

INTTRSTATZ PARCEL EX?RESS C @ .

PTY. L1:'ITr.D

Y:-nt? D e f e n i ? a n t

- 2 - * \

AS T O subpoenas d u c e s t e c u m a d d r e s s e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g :

GeorcJe Ernest Llncoln, Ralph Charles Wilkins , John Arthur

ISlse, Peter Unlacke, Ne11 David RowsthOrn, F!ervyn George Davies, Gerald Crofton

O 'Br ien , Ian Shor te l l , Edward ?;alter

W l l l l a n P r e b b l e , Joseph Anthony Gou lds tone , Ve i l Ed.:i?rri

Rcblnson, Johr. S;'ll.llam Llnfoot , Wil l lam Roots ,

CPnZR t h a t no resconse need be	giv2n	t o paragrsphs	( c ) , (d)
-
and (f).

0THEF.WSZ OSDCR t h e summonses i n c l u d i n g t h e ScTmons zssued by

t h e f i r s t , f l f t h and s even th de fendan t s s e t o a s lde t he

1 ? : . > L no o r e c r as t o COS'.^.

S : . TO tl;e sub2oena duces tecuin addressed to Pece r Rochfo r t

3-?L)Z?. that t h e s u r m c n s t o se'. a s i ?e t h e sub>oena be Clismlssed

ch c o s t s .

- 2 -

REASOXS FOR JUDGMENT

On 2 5 May 1978 the T rade P rac t i ces Comiss lon commenced

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

endorsed aga ins t T.N.T. Vanaqenent Pty. Lxnited, Erambles

Hold lngs L l n i t e d , lcayne h’lckl ess Llmited, Youngs Transpor t

P ty . L lml t cd , Anse t t T ranspor t Indus t r l e s (Opf ra t lons ) Pty .

Lunjtecl , Zxpress Frclght Pty. Llmlted, Associated Steamships

P ty . Lzmi ted , Express Ipec Hold inqs L iml ted and In te rs te te Pzrcc l

C o . P ty . L imi ted seeklnq pecuniary pena l t ies under

ss .76 and 77 of t h e T r a d e ? r a c t l c e s A c t 1974 ( “ t h e A c t “ ) and

~ n j u q c t ~ c n s uncier s . 8 0 . The clalrn ! ;CS based upon t h e a l l e g t d

concravcnr ion by the Ceferdants of s . 4 5 of the Act as it stcc::

p r l o r t o 1:s a?endnent on 1 J u l y 1377. I t i s a l l eqed =>,a?

three urEsrs tancl ings or arrangenents were nt?red 1: l to on 12

Febrczry 1 3 7 6 , 20 May 1375 and 4 Accust 1376 and a l s o Yna:

t hese	unce r s tond incs	o	r	r r r angencn t s	were	?’..;en	e f f e c t t o	a;-5
L,

c.>a’: t i - y L s condhct contCnucs.

.:,X a ;>? l ica t lon by tbe second de ienr7? .n t to s t r ike oc’i

cer--?.ln y r a g r 5 p h s I n t he s t a t emenc of claii.1 was dzsmlssecl c n

3 J ~ l y 1979 and a n appeal t o t h e F u l l Court aq,?Lnsk t h l s

r e f c s z l O n 3 7iprl.l 19ao summcnses as dlsmzssed on 2 1 Xovember 1 9 7 9 .

were jssued by three of th?

r2ef2rCc.rts sceklng an o r d e r t h a t t h e a c t l o : 1 z g a i n s t t h e

c!cTencl,ants t ak lng o u t t h e SuIlmOns be t r i e d s e p a r a t e l y . L .lC 2 -

sum-lonses wcre cllsmissed.

O c 3 : ‘zy 1931 one of the dcfenclants ap?l led for an order

tl:;lt the c c r r e c t r u l e s of the Fcdera l Cour t should , l n f u t u r e ,

- 3 -

app ly t o t hese p roceed lngs . Th i s de fendan t was supported by

t h e Ccmmlssion b u t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was opposed by o t h e r

de fendan t s . The order sought was r e fused . I t fo l lowed t ha t

t he p roceed ings con t inued i n fo rce unde r t he o ld ru l e s whlc:?

a r e t o b e f o u n d i n S t a t u t o r y R u l e s 1 9 7 7 No. 20 and S t a t u t o r y

Rules 1 9 7 7 Eo. 2 2 0 . To a l a r g e x t e n t h e Xigh C o u r t r u l e s

a r e a p p l i c a b l e r n u t a t l s rnutand1.s.

Qccause t he p roceed ings a r e fo r pena l t l e s no d l scoy .c ry o r

l n t e r r c g a t o r l e s h a v e b e e n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Cornrnisslcn a q a l n s t

the defer .?ar t s (The King v . Assoc la tcd Mor tkern Col l ie r~es

(1910) 11 C . L . R . 7 3 8 ; R e f r l g e r a t e d E x p r e s s L l n e s

(?;>lstr21?51+) Pt.,-. L;rnl:e? 7 7 . Aust re l i an !!eat Pd Llvestoc:?

Cor?cra t lcn ( 1 9 7 0 : -12 F . L . R . 2 0 4 ) . The Cormiss ion d ld l s sue a

n o t l c e ~ n c e r s . 1 3 5 o f t h e A c t but t h i s was a f t e r t h e

prccecd:ngs hed cormenceC. The i s s c e of t h e n o t l c e was

c;?a! l e c q e d m d it vas h c l d t h a t it need no t be msvered and ,

indeed, t11z.t It was a conrempt of c o c r t ( E r m 5 l e s ~ o l c ? l n c s

-

Llm1:cci v . Trzf le Prac t ices Commiss lo~ (1380) A .T .P.3 . 42,461;

c f . TT;:?.E ? r a c t ~ c e s C o n r . l s s l o n v . P l o n e e r C o n c r e t e ( V I C . ) ~ t y .

Lln:ted,	1 7 Auqust	1981,	unrepor ted ,	on	a p p e a l	t o	t h e	High
C o u r t ) .

The p l z z d l n g s a r e now conp le t e and a d a t e f o r t h e h e a r l r . 5

has been f1::ed f o r 6 October 1981 f o r so:nc nonths .

Thc sumnonses wh,:llch a r e POW b e f o r e me a r e t o se t aslde

c e r t a ~ n subpoenas duces tecum which ave been l s s u e d by t he

C o r x l s s l o n a g a l n s t f o u r t e e n p e r s o n s , e x e l y , M e s s r s .

C o a l d z t o n e , P r e b b l e , S h o r t e l l , W15e, L l n c o l n , W i l k i n s ,

- 4 -

O ’ D r l e n , D a v i e s , U n i a c k e , R o w s t h o r n , L i n f o o t , R o b i n s o n ,

Roch5ort 2nd Roots. The subpoenas were, by an overslg’nt,

l s s c e d i n t h e form prescribed b y t h e c u r r e n t r u l e s of t h e

Fe:lcr?tl Court . They were made r e t u r n a b l e on 10 Septenber

1301, t h a t i s , i n aclvance of t h e h e a r i n g . On t h e r e t u r n d a y

a l j persons -vim had been sdbpoenaed w r e l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d .

The d e f e n d a n t s h a d a l l b e e n n o t l f l e d and SGI~IC., b u t n o t a l l , of

them :rere l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d .

Two i n i t i a l poiints w e r e t a k e n . F l r s t , t h a t h e suSFoenas

werc l n t h 2 wrong form and were as a consequence a n u l l l t y ,

anr?, secor.Cly, t h c t t h e r e was no powcr i n t hc Fede ra l Cour t t o

ma’.:e 1 sub?oena dccss tecum returnaj le i n advance of t h e

i1ezr:nS oi t he p roceed lngs . I r u l e d on t h e s e two p o i n t s a’:

t h e c13se of	a r ~ ~ ~ x c r . ~	on them on 10 Sep te rbe r 1981.	I h e l i
L.

L L ~ a ? t h e C c r v l s s i o n should be excused frorl i t s f a i l u r e t o

cc rc l l ; v i th th2 app l . l czb le ru l e s en? I s t a t e 2 t h a t I w o ~ l d

g 1 . l ~ rezsons :f requested. Ressons :$?re r eques t ed and ’nsve

:;l?ce 0e21? g i v e n .

?>.c- ke2rlr .g of t h e summo?ses t o s e t aslde t h e s u b p c n a s

co?t:r.ue?. I t vas rgued Chat I should set t h e su’spoenas

as:ds	~3	l l r ; . . lne on	var lous	g rounds .	TO	a p p r e c l z t c	t h e	g r o u n i s
-

It i s n e c c s s a r y t o s c t o u t t h e form o f t he subpoenas .

Thirteen of the-7 \,ere l n a form hhich re5ul red thc persor ’

scS::oenJcd t o procluce t?le doccnents ancl thlnqrj clescrlbed i n a

schedule . In each ca se t he s chedu le vas a s f o l l o ~ i s :

- 5 -

" ( a ) Group c e r t l f i c a t e s and any recores of d e t a i l s

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

income der ived by you dur ing the f i n a n c i a l y e a r s

cr.3lng 3 0 June 1975, 3 0 June 1976, 3 0 June 1977

and 30 June 1979;

( b ) t h e p a r t s of your income t a x r e t u r n s f o r t h e

f inanc l31 yea r s en2 lng 3 0 Junc 1975, 30 June

l97G, 3 0 June 1977 and 3 0 June 1978 in whlch the

name or nzmes of your	employer	or e r p l o y e r s are
s t a t e d ;

( c ) all documents recor2lng o r e v l d e n c i n g t h e name

of each employer by which you were emFloyed

d u r l n g t h e f l n a r c l a l y e a r s e n d l n g 30 Junc 1 9 7 5 ,

3 0 June 1976, 3 0 June 1977 and 3 0 June 1978 ;

(2) all dccuments recoreing or ev idencing tine name

of any conpany of which you were a d i r e c t o r

' d u r l n q t h e f l n a n c l a l y e a r s e n d l n g 30 June 1975,

30 Jur.2 1976, 3 0 Ju:le 1977 and 3 0 June 1 Q i G ;

( e ) all n o t l c e s of mee:7Lnos, agendas f a r rreatln:s,

rnll~~.I:es zn+ notes 0 2 Ireezlngs of t:;e ?:a'-- L L3nrl

Fre-j.1s7FLt r o r T . , a r d e r s ' A s s o c l e t l o n from an33

1 z c l u ~ ~ r . q 1 February 1976 t o an? inclxd-ng 3 0

Noxre:13er 1976;

( f) a! 1 ?ccu-ents rccorc?inq or ev ldenc ing t hc namzs

05 t h e t r u s t e e s of a n y superarnuat ron fund t o

?.+:c:h you o r any person on your behal E made

c c n t r l b u t l c n s c l u r l q t h e f l n a ? c l a l y e a r s c n d l n g

30 ;Lire 1975, 30 J c n e 1?7G, 3 0 June 1977 zr.3 3 0

J L ? ~ 1978. "

On? o f -,ne sub>oenas, addr-ssec! t o a [Mr. .Pochfort, W L S l n

a ?:Cferent form. I s h a l l d e a l wlth It l a t e r .

1rclcr:er: of the sur:-a?sns and whlch was t o be tc-ken as eviclence In the ev l2ence which was t enec red cn t h e h e n r l n g

In a l l

a g p l l c a t l o n s was a l e t t e r date(: 9 Dece~rbcr 1973 f r c n ti-c

C o n r o - w a l t l ~ Crorvn S o l l c l t o r t o Pari-sh Patlence an? NcIntyr?

which g a v e c e r t a l n p a r t i c u l a r s o f a1 l e g a t ~ o n s i n t h e statement

O f c l a 1 7 alnd whlc'n i n d l c a t e d t:mt, w l t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of ?r.

Roc*:srt, t h e p e r s o n s who had been serve(! wlth tl-ese subpoerzs

- 6 -

were i n one way o r a n o t h e r a l l e g e d t o b e r e p r e s e n t a t l v e s o f

o n e o r o t h e r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t o n e o r more o f t he mee t ings

r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e s t a t e m e n t of claim. Another document,

someivhat s u r g r i s l n g l y i n e v i d e n c s , was a summary a p p a r e n t l y

. p r c p r e d by someone on t h e plaintiff's s i d e i n d i c a t i r a t h e

i s s u e s ,	whzt	evtdence	was	a v a t l a b l e and	what	evldcncc!	would	Se
neeecd.

C o u ~ s o l r e p r e s e n t i n g f l v e o f t h e p e r s o n s u b p o e n a e d ,

n a m e l y , > ! e s s r s . G o u l d s t o n e , P r c b b l c , S h o r t e l l , W l s e a n d

L inco ln ca r r i ed t he ma ln bc rden of ar2cr;er.t. Fe submittec?,

f l r s t , t h z t a d e f e n e a n t i n proceedings f o r a pe:ialty was no=

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

es‘~lzlls;1;e:?t of 1 i a b l l i t y f o r t h z p e n a l t y . €:e r e < e r r e ? t o

! ‘ ? . r L L r ir. T r f a c i e r (1825) 16 Q . B . D . 507; Jones V . Jones

( 1 2 2 9 ) 2 2 C.G.D. 4 2 5 : The King Rssoc la :ed v. Xor thern

C 5 l l i e - l ? s ,	s d p r a ;	Eqc	and	Eat! P u l p >‘arket in?	Boar?	v .	Iior.?
A

Tccc:al T ra5 l r . a Co . P tv . - L i m l t o d [l5631 V . R . 3 7 8 : an?

Z - f r l c c r a k s d - !?rnress - L i n e s ( . ~ u s t r . = l e s i a ) P t y . Llmiteci v .

______._

A i s : r z l ~ a r !;=:.c and Livestock Corpor? t lon , sup ra . Pc ?.~CJEE:

t h a t t h e lnf-r- la l t icn principle of mmunlty extended any to form of

7,hlch might asslst l n c s t a b l l s h t n g t h e l l a b l l i t y

of a ?e€cr.c!rnt a t l e a s t where 12 was souqht t o bc ob ta lned

f r c l , i? 1;crson a l l e g e d to be a r e p r e s c n t a t l v e o f thf dcfepclant.

Seconc:ly, he a r g u e d t h a t t h e principle d l s c u ~ s e d i n Tesco

Suner -arkc ts L’.l’uted v . X a t t r a s s L 1 3 7 2 1 A . C . 1 5 3 appl ler l . Ire

cor;ter.c?ed Lhat If lt z p p e a r e d t h a t a person subFoenaed to

prodcce clocuments was a d i r e c t o r of a corrpany whlch was a

- 7 -

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

p r i n c i p l e t h e company was n o t r e q u l r e d t o I n c r i m i n a t e i t s e l f ,

t h e d i r e c t o r was t h e company and was e n t i t l e d t o t h e company' S

lmnnunlty f rom d isc losure . H e a r g u e d t h a t t h i s p r i n c i . p l e

ap!>lled t o a d l r e c t o r also of an assoclatecl compny of a

defendant co:i>any o r t o a n y member o f s en io r r anagcnen t . Tb.e

c lass covered was l z t e r s a l d t o c o m p r l s e a general mznzgcr,

scr.era1 mz?agsr of a d iv is ion , deputy genera l manager o r

a s s l s t a n t t o t h e d p u t y G e n e r a l m a r . z q e r . T k l r S l y , h c

s u b m i t t c c t h a t the d o c m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o I n p a r a g r a p h ( e ) of

che scS?of??. shou ld be ln fe r r ed t3 be the cor2any ' S Cocuments

ar.d t o be l: t?,? custocly cf the suk_=ocnaed person as a scr;-a?t

nr represc: : ta t lve of t h c com~2ny. I t follol.:eci, so lc :.as

arGL1e3, f rorr t h e p r l n c 1 p l . e discussed ~n Z c c l e o & C o . v.

L , ~ ~ : ~ s ~ ; i l l e ?zd Nzshv1ll.e Fsilroad Corn?any [l9127 1 K . B . 1 3 3

t > z c t > e p i r son suS>3en=s6 ought no% t o ha7.e t3 i n q d r r e of h:s

e.?;>lG;er .c.-,scb.er he had eu' i l?orlty t o producE the t?ocurnents zr.5

i:1	-,>c cl5?e?ce of	a u t h o r l t y s h o u l d n o t	be	compclled t o prcC:::ce
2.1

L . - , e ~ . ~ 7 c ~ ~ ~ - ~ h l ~ ~ , hc s u b n l ? C t c Z = h a t t h e s u b p e n a 12 r e l a t l o n t D

'c::? Z . c c ~ . ; ~ e n c s r c f c r r e d t o I n p a r a s r a p h s (a) t o ( d ) i n c l u s z v e

aylci l n par,grzph ( f) was too wide.

C ~ : I R S ~ : f o r t he o the r pe r sons s chposnaed ado:?ted t h e s e

a r q l n e n t s <i1:2 15 some lnstxnces aevanced adcil t lona! arguments.

Cacnsel for f lve other such persons, namely, ! lessrs . Wllklt:s,

O'>r:en, ?z.Jles, Uni2cl;e end Rovsthorn, argued t h a t ln I o o k l n ~

t o t h e xn'c1.t of t h e i n n u n ~ . t y given t o t 3 c d e f c a d a n t s , t h e

Cocrt shou1-l be concernec! with kha t was t h e " p r o p e r t y " o f t h e

- 5 -

defendznt , whether i n t h e form of information or documents,

He s u k m l t t e d t h a t as t o knowledge acquired by a person as a

serv2.r.t of a compny or documents which came to t h a t p e r s o n a s

a s e r v a n t of t h e company, t h e corrpany was e n t l t l c d t o say do

p o t disclose i t and the person subpoenaed was e n t l t l e d t o

r e f u s e t o d i s c l o s e it.

Counscl for Plcssrs. Linfoot and Rohlnson, as .well a s

r e l y l n g p n r t l c u l a r l y o n t % e principle d l s c u s s c d I n Ecc le s

- C a s e , s u p r a , r e f e r r e d t o s.75B o f t h e A c k . Th i s r ende r s

liable t o p r o s e c u t l o n o r p e n a l t y any person who hcs a l d e d ,

a b e t t e d , c o u n s e l l e d or procured a c o n t r z v c n t i o n o r WPO hes

Seen i n zny tVry C i r e c t l y o r l n 2 l r e c l i l y :<cc:;lngly concerne,? 112

cIr a L>arLy~ t o a ccnz ravsnz lon o r who has cons2irccl v i t h o z h e r s

to n?z,=p*. _ L 2 c o n t r ~ v e c t l o r . E? t e n d e r e c l t h r e e a f f l d a v l t s sl1’3rn

‘cy :‘F. Kood, a sa! i c l t o r employed by t h e flrm of solicitors a u t l i . ? fzr !:le second defer2anlr. an2 also P!r. ?.ob:nso? an< ;.F.

L l l f X t . I n c?-e f j r s t a f f l l a v l t P!r. Wcod r s f e r r e d to tk.n

>?r?:rarh < - of t h? su‘upoenas served on Xessrs. Koblnsou am:

L:~;r?z: (Farq;a:,h ( e ) ) 2i.2 said “any such documcnts whhlch m?.?’

exist a r c tb.e p r o n e r t y of t h e s e c o n d d c f e n d a n t “ . X o t h ~ n g W A S

s z l d a s t o t h e n a t u r e o f a n y p o s s e s s l o n , custoc2y o r c o n k r o l

:vhlc:7 : :essrs . l i cb lnson and Llnfoot mlqht have or the capac1’;y

1-2 \,’- c:? t h c y F.cl2 thc docu-enLs. I n h l s s e c o n d a f f l l i a v l t be

sairl hc was ln!orned by X r . Roblnson and v e r l l y b c l l e v e d “ t h a t

h c (:‘r. R o b l r s o n ) f r a r s t h a t lf he were obl lged to p ro6uce t h 2

docu.r.cnts r e f e r r c d to i n t?le subpoena o r any of them tkc

p r c d x t l o n of such documents would t end t o expose h l m t o a

- 9 -

p c c u n l a r y p e n a l t y " . H i s t h i r d a f f l d a v i t r e f e r r e d t o Mr.

L in foo t and was i n s i m l l a r t e r m s . N o g rounds for such fears

w e r e s t a t e d . H e r e f e r r e d t o O'Toole v . Mltcham ( 1 9 7 7 ) 2

A . C . L . R .	4 7 1	( a f f i r m e d	i n	t h e	Hlgh	Court)	and	t o	The
_.

Coz?nissloner for Railwavs v. Small (1938) 3 8 S . R . ( N . S . Y . ) 5 6 3

a t p . 5 7 3 . He also argued tha t the subpoena was flsh1r.g and

t o o	w1?e.
Counsel f o r t h e f i r s t , f i f t h and seventh defendants by

l eave aed rnssed the Cour t . ne a rgued tha t he su5poenas were

bad on the g round , amonss r o the r s , t ha t t hey sough'. d l s c o v e r y .

IIe s u b m i t t e d t h a t a su 'spoena should a lways Se held to seek

discovery lf it WPS 1ssue-7 a g a i n s t a s t r a r g e r m advance of

t k z rrlal S!]? tile s t r a n q e r was r equ i r ed EO stac; . { 'hetker a

Eocu2er.t e x l s t e d 2nd whcther he hac! It .

I d e a l wit:? t h e s e F o l n t s i n t u r n .

Ccrrar..,,' S irrvuni.ty

The p r o p c s i t i o n t h a t a deffndant conFw?y ln p rocee5rcgs

f o r J. p e r z l t y 1 s n o t r e q u l r e d t o A l s c l o s e l n f o r m a t l c n vh:ch

IWL] a s s r s t i n e s L a b l i s h i n g liability f o r t h e p c n a l t y 1s a

s0un. l one but the corol . lary which 1s put forward 1 s too wide.

It 1 s n o t c o r r e c t , i n my o p l n i o n , t o say t b a t t h e p r l n c l _ o l e o f

mv-l!nl';y e.'tcnc?s t o any form of l n f o r n a t l o n wh1ch 1111ght

establish t h e liability of such a defendan t . Tke underly1r.q

prlncI.p!e 1 s t h a t t h e ciefen?.ant i s n o t t o b e r e q u i r e d t o

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

be ob ta lned f ron a s t r a n g e r I f lt i s a v a i l a b l e . I t may be

- 10 -

t h a t i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t h e p e r s o n f r o m whom t h e

l n c r i m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s sought i s not a s t r a n o e r b u t i s ,

i n c f f ec t . founc?ztion of t h e arc,I-.ent cove red by t he immuni ty . Th l s r ea l ly was t h e

p u t . h'owevcr, no f ac t s have so f a r

b e e n e s t d b l l s h e d b e f o r e me which would lead me t o h o l i th?.t

a n y o n e co~?:?y's o f t h e p e r s o n s s u b p o e n a e d was e n t l t l e d t o t h e

1.nmunlty. Whether, i 5 t h e y w e r e n t l t l e d to such

I X T C I ~ ~ ~ ~ , t h e objection shoe12 be taken by them Fersonall;/ c11

t h e r e t u r n of the su3poena, i s a n o t h e r m a t t e r .

Corpany's documonts i n t he cus iody of a s e r v a n t

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

t h a t a s e r v a n t o f a company who has cus tody of t h e company' S

d o c ~ ~ e ~ k s o q h t n o t t o h a v e t o l n q u i r e o f h ls employer whether

he has o f authority should Dot b e au t l -or l ty to p ro luce the documents and i n t he absence

c o n p l l e d to prcduce them. The

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

c s t a b l ~ s l - e d which would e?lable me t o a p p l y t h i s p r l n c l p l e . So

f a r as t h e e v l d e n c e g o e s , I am l e f t i n lgnorznce whether any

of tFle pcrsons subpcenaed 1s a s e r v a n t of any of t h e d e f c n d a n t

con,anles, and, sab ~ c c t t o what I say below as t o [Jr. Rojinson

an? : 1 r . LinLcot, i n Ignorance also of whether the docu-ents

>.?1ci-. t ' l e ,t2rsor.s a:'~2en?erl a r e c z l l z d on t o :>reduce e r e 12

f z c t t h e cc,x?anics. d c c m e n t s of an;. 0p.e o r p o r e o f t h e l e f e n C a n t

From t > e a l l e g a t l o n s i n t1.c s t a t emen t o f c l a lm ?.?.c:

L - - 1 2 pzr t l - cc l a r s , one mlgh t specu la t e a j o c t t h - s e n a t t e r s . 2 : l t

t l -e J-zLey.?nt a l l eg2 t1ons a r e d e n i e l b y t h e ?!efsnSznts. I do

n ? t cens:dL-r tke evz:?ezce would leac7 n e t o 2raw t h e sc:c.'estef?

. - -o : - rmslc ,?s . I n t h e c z s e o f Er. Rchlnson and ?h-. L i n f o o t I

~.; .Jc t l - e a f f ldav l t ev i i i ence of Nr. Wood t h a t a n y d o c u r e n t s

fa l l1 .nc; v l t lTln paragraph (e) which may e x i s t a r e t h e p r o p e r t y

of th.e secopd defendant . B u t I hzve no c v l d e n c e a s t o who has

p c s s e s s l o n , c u s t o d y or c o n t r c l o f Lhe docunents or In what

r l c h t ; : e s s r s . K o b l n s o n a n l L i n f o o i may h a v e p o s s c s s ~ o r ,

c u s t o d : ~ o r c o n t r o l .

- 12 -

I r ; . n c n i t y a t t z c h i n g t o d e f e n d a n t s ' " p r o p e r t y "

I t was submi t ted tha t knowledge acqui red by a person as a

s e r v a n t of a company or documents which come t o t?mt p e r s o n a s

a	s e r v z n t o€	t h e company	was	"p rope r ty" of	t h e company;	t h a t
.	'	1

wocll s e r - / a c t l u s t producc be a b reach of t h e immunit-y p r l r . c l p l e t o say t h e

l'i: the compny would b e e n t l t l e d to s a y

do not d l f f - c u l t y produce the docuxents o r dlsclose t h e i n f o r n a t l o n . The

With t h l s s u b n l s s l o n , as v i t h t h e l a s t suba iss lon

d l s c u s s e d ,	1.s	t h a t	t h e	e v i d e n c e	d o e s	n o t	e s t a b l i s h	t h e	f c c t ;
t o suF1:ort	IC.

- 13 -

t he pe r son d o c u m e n t s addres sed t o make a judgment as t o e a c h of h i s

r e l a t e d t o l s s u e s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s (Small's Case,

supra ,	a t	p .573;	and	Walnd	v .	H 1 1 1 and Nat ional	Zmployers '
-

Y u t u z l General Assoclat ion Llmited C19781 1 N . S . V . L . R . 372 a t

p . 3 8 2 ) . I t vas a l s o a r g u e d t h a t p a r a g r a p h s ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , ( d )

and ( f ) each contained a gene ra l desc r lp t lon wh lch would cover

a l a r c e number of dccuments, some of which could no t poss lb ly

b e r ~ l e y 7 a n t . Thls may be a g r o u n d f o r s e t t i n g a s x l e a

sx 'cpena ( ! ra~nci ' S C z s e , s u p r a , a t p . 3 8 2 ) . However, whether a

subpoena 1 s t o be he ld oppres s lve on t h i s ground an6 s e t a s l d e

inbo lves a ques t ion of Zeqree .

Loo-r:?.q a r pazacr-lnhs ( a ) ancl (3) It 1 s t r u e the:I r a y i n

t'. ,'3lr tsr:-3 r e 2 c h d o c > n e r t s which -?.,not poss1S1:; be rcles-zn+_.

-.	~ - . L
- L _ exznple , a g r o u n c e r r l f l c l t e o r a p a r t of an i n c o x e t a r
r e t u r n *.~F.:ch refers t o an enpl-cyer who h a s n o t 3 l n q t o Zc vlth
z - e c a s e . !-:orrever, the doc lments described m u s t necessarily
S e fe..;. I cio r o t c o n s l z e r t h e r e would be opyress lon on the
FcrLon.: se:-l?d wi th the s u b p e n n a n d I am not p repa?eE to Tc t
L . su'3;:ac~as a s i d e so f a r p a r a q r a p h s s ( a ) n ? (b) a r e
cc7cerned. 1 am of p-nlon the documer. ts referred to i n
r,?ragra?'>s ( a ) and ( b ) shoul f l be produced t o thc Cour t and li
ob]ect.ion 1s t aken t o a c c e s s t o any of them on C1.e qrounzs
they h>.~e no r e l e v a n c e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h x s 11111 be r u l d
unon a r tine t u r e .

Looklng a t p a r a c r a p h s ( c ) , (d) ar.d ( f ) , ~t a p p e a r s t o me

t ' l a t Lhese parag raphs a r e t oo v ide . Not o n l y d o t h e y r e f e r t o

~ n p l o y c r s , companies an:! t h e t r u s t e e s of superannuat ion funds

- 14 -

which may b e q u r t e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , b u t a l s o t h e

r c f e r c n c e i s t o documents " record ing or ev idencing" var ious

rimes and t h i s d e s c r l p t l o n , a l t h o q : ? r c s t r l c t e d t o a f o u r y e a r

p e r i o d , i s o t b e r v l s e u n l l n i t c d . The subpoena bould requlrc a

]~;dgrnent t o b c e x e r c i s e d as t o what documents "evi8enced" such

nanss as c i l s t lnc t f rom "recording". I n my opln ion It would be

o p p r e s s i v e t o r e q u i r e t h e p e r s o n s s u b p o e n a e d t o a n s x e r j n

r e s p f c t o f t h e s e p a r z g r a 2 h s .

I t u r n t o t he subpoena s e rved upon b!r. Kochfort . This

sub3oer.a c a l l e d u,?on hlm L 0 p r o e u c e t h e f o l l o v l n g d o c m e n t s :

- 15 -

( 4 ) a l l d o c u r n e n t s r e c o r d i n g o r e l a t i n g t o t h e levy

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

s u b s c r i p t l o n s b y members of t h e N a t i o n a l F r e i g h t

Fo rwarde r s ' Assoc la t ion fo r t he yea r 1975/76 .

1376/77, and 1977/73;

( h ) a l l documents recordlng the menbershlp of t h e

I !a t lona l Fre ight Forwarders ' Assoc ia t lon frorn

tl-c d a t e of t h e L'or!nation of t h a t A s s o c l a t l o n

until 2 5 ?,!ay 1973:

(1) a11 v r l t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r membership of t h e

Y a t l o n z l Fre igh t Tc rwarde r s ' Assoc ia t lon made by

zny person f o r m a t ~ o n of t h z t A s s o c i a t l o n Lint11 25 [\lay 1978; or corrpany from the dake of t'ne

('.L)	all doccmer.ts sh3\'1ng ar. anr.uz1 l i s t or r c g l s t e r
of nemjers of t h e K a t i o n z l F r e l c h t F o r w a r d e r s '
Assoc la t ion , mc lud lng any such list o r r e q l s t e r

' k e ? t s e p a r z t e l y , f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 5 / 7 6 , 1376/77,

1 0 7 7 f 7 8 .

(1) a l l dcc~;-~znts 10Sazd w i ~ h t:le E.cecl;tlve Direc'ccr

to: ::.S ?.L,s;:-zi:a:: 2 ~ ~ 2 TraasGcrt :2S=ratlo? fro-

' L ~ r i ~ t o t:.T;Ie by ar.11 m m b e r 05 the >Tat lonr l

Freloht Forwarders ' Assoclazion o- . lnat ing a r y

pcrson as be l r .5 aur5or i sed to represenE Ynzt

?e?lZer a t m e e r l n c s of t h e X a t l o n a l F r e l c i k

T o r , , z r d e r s ' A s s o c l a t l o n o r s t z ~ l n c ~ the^ a n y

ce r scn would a t t e n d any rneetlngs of ti-.e N a t i o r a l

?re:cht Fcrqxarders' Assocletlon on 523.-1.5 of

tL - L msnhcr;

(m)	211 ciocuxcnts whereby wmhers of the Xatloral
- ,-,='nht - _ _ F o r \ ? a r Z e r s ' h s s o c l a t l o n !?Ere n o t l f l e d o f
L1 .'e . lolr?lnG of a !7ec';jnc of t h e >?~at~or .z1 k3reiq?1L
?;r:<arc?ers' Assoc la t lon on 20 Mzy 1976 ;
( n )	all docurnents n o t i f y i n g members 05 t he PJa t l c ra l
F r e l g l - t Forwarders ' Assoc la t lon of the h o l d l n g
of 3 c l lnner CO follow the meetlncj o f t h e
X2tion21 I rc lght Forwarders ' Assocla ' icn on 20
i i ? y 1975;
( 0 )	211 d o c c n e n t s r e c o r d l n g o r c v l c i f n c l c g t h e
h t t e n d a n c z a t t h e m e e t i n 2 of t h e X a t l o n a l
r re igh ' ; Forwardcrs ' Assoclat lon on 20 t l n y 1376:
( n )	a 1 1 d o c u m e n t s r e c o r d - n o o r e v l d e n c l n g t h c
a t t e n d a n c c a t t h e d l n n e r r e f e r r e d to l n

parzgraph ( n ) above.

(0) a l l accounLs r e c e l ~ ~ e r l by the Xat lona l Fre lgh- ,

1 7 c r ~ , ~ r c l e r s ' . l s s o c l a t l o n I n r e s p e c t of t h e d l n n e r

r e f e r r e d t o 13 parzgraph ( n ) abo-le;

- 16 -

( r ) a l l accounts rendered by members a n d l o r r e c o r d s

of amounts charqed t o nembers of the Nat ional

r r e lqh t Fo rwnrde r s ' Assoc la t ion i n r e s p e c t of

t h e d i n n e r r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a g r a p h (a) above;

( S ) a l l documcnts, recelved from members of t h e

N a t i o n a l Freight F o r w a r d e r s ' A s s o c l a t l o n l n

r e s p o n s e t o cny of the docunen t s r c f e r r ec? to I n

pnragraph ( r ) above;

(t) a l l r eco rds kep t o f -

(1) correspondence, and

( i j ) outqolpg xc i l ,

from t h e office of the Execut ivn Dlrec tor o€ t h e

W?t lona l F re igh t Fo rwarde r s ' Assoc la t ion fo r t he

per106 1 Janua ry 1075 to 3 0 Xovwber 1976 . "

I,

C o u n s e l f o r Vr. Rochfort arioFtec? %:^.E ar9Ine!?c p u t I;:;

Czc:-ssl LCcr : i e s s r s . Gouldstonc, S h o r t e l l , Prebble, Vise and

L;r.ccln an? by Counsz l f o r !.!essrs. Davles, Uniac-?e, Ro;~~st:~orn,

@ ' Z r : s p SRC :Cil 'c~2s a p d a d v a n c e d c e r t a i n n r l c l ~ t ~ c ~ a l a r g u m e n t s .

:rzr- ~ 7 . 1 0 c f f l d e v l t s sx.rorn by Mr. Snnrpe, a s o l l c i t o r employee

by:. the firx of solicitors a c c i n q f o r Yr. RcchJI'ork ancl fro17 Xr.

S->r:>e' S or;ll eviclencc qlven :.!ken h c was cross-e::~1:i:ned U?OR

h15 a f f ; d a - ~ i t s , lt a p ~ e z r e d t h a k Xr. P o c h f s l - t was t h e

-_ 2cc t~ ' ; e O l rec to r 0' t h e A u s t r a l i a n Road Tra: lsport Federt?t lon

and C:IC I ' : :ecdt lvc Dlrector of the P l a t iona l F re lqh t Fo<ra rde r s '

h s s o c l ~ : l c n . Ths r u l e s of ne l the r ? \ s soc la t lon were b e f o r e ne

and I an u:~i :~arc what Xr. Rochfc r t ' S < u t ~ , z s rnlghc he as

L.:cccltlve Dl rcc to r of e i the r un lcco rgor sked asscclatlo?. !Ir.

S:mrye l n hls o ra l ev ldence sugqes t ed t h? t Xr. Rochfort was

,I 3

t n . 2 p e r s o n wbo C O - o r d l n a t e s t h e c?calinqs with t h e

0rc;::r;isatlon". Thls does n o t c a r r y t h e m a t t c r v e r y f 2 r . NOT

- 1 7 -

d ld it appear who were thc members o f e l t h e r a s s o c i a t i o n o r

whether any par t icu lar defendant was o r was no t a member. I n

h i s o r a l e v i d e n c e H r . Shnrpe s z i r ? that h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t about

SIX defcrclants were members , basing thls upon a s ta ternent made

t o him by i l r . R o c h f o r t a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s Tvho were nct

memjers. Thls did no t do much t o c l a r i f y t h e s l t u z t i o n .

Deallng wlth the c l a m of t h e e x t e n s l o p of the Imnunl ty of

a n y o f o?lr?:on t h e d e f e n d a n t c o l p a n l e s t o Mr. Rochfort , I an of

I h a v e n o s u f f l c l e n t f a c t u a l b a s l s or? vhlch t o

conc lc r l e t ha t any pa r t i cu la r de fendan t ' s 1 Imun l ty should be

g i v e n e f f e c t t o ~n hl.; favour. Nor d o z s t he ev idence suqqes t

t h z t ti1e pr lnc l , le c l l sccsse? i n t h e Tesr: Case voc16 ha.:@ zny

~?:1lcac? on to i4r. Roc.-~fort .

DeallnG x l t h t h e c l a i z t h a t the _nr lnc lp l c d i sccs se? n i

Ecc!es C 2 s e shou lc be app l l ed to hlm, I a!7 ccnfronted wich t:Ie

same C155--cdlYAr, that. I have no evidence f r o n wh-h_ch I 313

pr-.-:rc.l tr: conclcde that t he doc9mec t s r e f e r r ed t o I n

s u ' > ~ o e c a ;Yn'cS. \la5 addressed t o Xr. Xochior t a re l n f a c c

tl-c os ners : l lp , possess lon , ccs tody or cont ro l o f any one o r

more of tl-c de fendan t s . I l eave on one s ide t he ques t lon

wi.e;her docxl-ents whlch were shobn t o b e g e n e r a l l y owned by cl

groun of p e r s o n s , some o f whom 1veL-e d e f e n d a n t s l n t h e

~ r o c c e d ~ c g s , woulci. a t t r a c t i m m u n l C y I n t h e c a s e o f ilr.

P.cc:lEort. I t ' a s n o t a r g u e 2 t h z t t h e subpoc.na addrcssccl t o

Mr. i)ochfort was t o o wide i n Its t e rms . A l toge the r , I am of

o;lnlo:1 tha t f ac t s hzve no t bee r . shown bhlch would b a r r a n t t h e

sett1T.g as l<e of the subpocna ddressed to Mr. noc'lfort ?.t

th1.S s t a g e .

- 18 -

In the result I conclude that paragraphs (c), (d) and (f)

of t h e subFoenas addresged to IYessrs. Gouldstone, Prebble,

S h o r t e l l , Wise, L l n c o l n , W l l k i n s , O'Brlen, Davies , Uniacke,

P.oLsthorn, L j n f c o t , Ro5inson and Zoots are too wide and need

COL 5 c ansve r sd . I am of Opin ion t ha t those subpoenas should

>e 2nss.rered so Tar a s paragraphs (c), (b) and ( e ) s r e

concerned.

I c o n c l u e e t h a t t h e subpoena address-ld to Mr. lochfor t

shoulc? not	be	set	asl2.e b u t that he	s k o u l d	ans ' ler	t h a t
sus-oena.