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

Subpoenas

duces

tecum

- Subpoenas

e rved

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

e v i d e n c e

l n d i v i d u a l s

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

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

ev idenclng" names

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 )

NEW

SOUTH WALES

D I S T R I C T

R E G I S T R Y )

Eo.

G 4 4

1978

)

GEYE&I.L

D I V I S I O N

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

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

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

t h e

f i r s t ,

f l f t h

and

s even th

de fendan t s

s e t

a s lde

t he

1 ?

no o r e c r as t o COS'.^.

TO tl;e sub2oena

duces

tecuin

addressed

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

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

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

s . 4 5 of

the Act

as it stcc::

p r l o r

t o

1:s

a?endnent

1 J u l y 1377.

I t i s a l l eqed

=>,a?

three

urEsrs tancl ings

arrangenents

were

nt?red

1: l to

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

tbe

second

de ienr7? .n t

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

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

dlsmzssed on

2 1 Xovember

1 9 7 9 .

were

jssued

three

of th?

r2ef2rCc.rts

sceklng

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

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

order

tl:;lt

the c c r r e c t r u l e s

the

Fcdera

Cour

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

t h e

Ccmmlssion

b u t

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n

was

opposed

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

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.

and

S t a t u t o r y

Rules

1 9 7 7 Eo.

2 2 0 .

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

d l scoy .c ry

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)

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

Llvestoc:?

Cor?cra t lcn

( 1 9 7 0 :

-12

F . L . R .

2 0 4 ) .

The

Cormiss ion

d ld

l s sue

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

t h e

n o t l c e

was

c;?a! l e c q e d m d

vas

h c l d

t h a t

it need

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 . )

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

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

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,

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

t h e

Fe:lcr?tl

Court .

They

were

made

r e t u r n a b l e

Septenber

1301,

t h a t i s , i n aclvance

t h e

h e a r i n g .

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 ,

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

consequence

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

t h e

i1ezr:nS

oi t he

p roceed lngs .

r u l e d

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

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?

s t a t e 2

t h a t

w o ~ l d

g 1 . l ~ rezsons

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

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
-

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

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

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,

June

l97G, 3 0 June

1977

and

3 0

June 1978

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

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

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

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

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

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

ev ldenc ing

t hc

namzs

t h e

t r u s t e e s

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

the ev l2ence which

was

t enec red

t h e h e n r l n g

a l l

a g p l l c a t l o n s

was

l e t t e r

date(:

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

?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

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

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

summary

a p p a r e n t l y

. p r c p r e d

someone

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

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

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 .

?.~CJEE:

t h a t t h e lnf-r- la l t icn

principle

mmunlty

extended

any

form

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 ,

1;crson

a l l e g e d

to be

r e p r e s c n t a t l v e o f

thf

dcfepclant.

Seconc:ly,

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

z p p e a r e d

t h a t

person

subFoenaed

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

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

d l r e c t o r

also

assoclatecl

compny

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

general

mznzgcr,

scr.era1

mz?agsr

d iv is ion ,

deputy

genera l

manager

o r

a s s l s t a n t

t o

t h e

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 )

che

scS?of??.

shou ld be

ln fe r r ed

the cor2any '

Cocuments

ar.d t o be l:

t?,? custocly cf the

suk_=ocnaed person as a scr;-a?t

represc: : ta t lve

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

Z c c l e o

C o .

L , ~ ~ : ~ s ~ ; i l l e

?zd

Nzshv1ll.e

Fsilroad

Corn?any

[l9127

K . B .

1 3 3

t > z c t > e

p i r son suS>3en=s6 ought

no% t o ha7.e

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 ~ ~ ,

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

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

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 "

t h e

- 5 -

defendznt ,

whether

i n t h e

form

information

documents,

s u k m l t t e d

t h a t

t o knowledge

acquired

by a person as a

serv2.r.t

compny or documents which

came

t h a t p e r s o n a s

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

procured

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

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

tk.n

>?r?:rarh

t h?

su‘upoenas

served

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

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

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

such

documents

would t end

t o

expose

h l m

t o

- 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 )

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

Small

(1938)

3 8

S . R . ( N . S . Y . )

5 6 3

a t

p . 5 7 3 .

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

l eave

aed rnssed

the Cour t .

ne a rgued

tha t

su5poenas

were

bad

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

su 'spoena

should

a lways

held

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

t k z

rrlal

S!]?

tile

s t r a n q e r

was

r equ i r ed

stac; .

{ 'hetker

Eocu2er.t

e x l s t e d 2nd whcther he

hac!

It .

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

p rocee5rcgs

f o r

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

s0un. l one but the

corol

lary

which

put

forward

1 s

too

wide.

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

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 ,

ob ta lned

f ron

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

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

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

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

which

would

lead

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

such

I X T C I ~ ~ ~ ~ ,

t h e objection

shoe12

taken

by them

Fersonall;/

c11

t h e r e t u r n

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

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

company who has cus tody

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

luce

the

documents

and

i n

t he

absence

c o n p l l e d

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

t o a p p l y t h i s p r l n c l p l e .

f a r

t h e

e v l d e n c e

g o e s ,

l e f t i n lgnorznce

whether

any

of tFle pcrsons

subpcenaed

1s a

s e r v a n t of

any

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

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

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

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.

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

~.; .Jc

t l - e

a f f ldav l t

ev i i i ence

Nr.

Wood

t h a t

a n y

d o c u r e n t s

fa l l1 .nc;

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

hzve

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

c o n t r c l

o f

Lhe

docunents

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

person as a

s e r v a n t of

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

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 ,

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

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

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

poss lb ly

b e

r ~ l e y 7 a n t .

Thls

may

g r o u n d

f o r

s e t t i n g

a s x l e

sx 'cpena

( ! ra~nci '

C z s e ,

s u p r a ,

a t

p . 3 8 2 ) .

However,

whether

subpoena

1 s

t o be he ld oppres s lve

t h i s ground

an6

s e t a s l d e

inbo lves

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 ,

g r o u n

c e r r l f l c l t e

o r

p a r t

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

vlth

z - e c a s e .

!-:orrever,

the

doc lments

described

m u s t

necessarily

S e

fe..;.

cio

r o t

c o n s l z e r

t h e r e

would

opyress lon

the

FcrLon.:

se:-l?d

wi th the s u b p e n n a n d I

not

repa?eE

L .

su'3;:ac~as

a s i d e

f a r

p a r a q r a p h s

( a )

n ?

(b) a r e

cc7cerned.

1 am

p-nlon

the

documer. ts

referred

i n

r,?ragra?'>s

( a ) and

( b ) shoul f l be

produced

t o thc

Cour t

and

ob]ect.ion

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 ) ,

a p p e a r s

t o

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

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

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

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

]~;dgrnent t o b c e x e r c i s e d

t o what

documents

"evi8enced"

such

nanss

c i l s t lnc t

f rom

"recording".

I n my opln ion It would

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 .

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

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

s u b s c r i p t l o n s b y

members

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

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

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

t h e

Y a t l o n z l

Fre igh t Tc rwarde r s ' Assoc ia t lon

made

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;

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

be l r .5

aur5or i sed

represenE

Ynzt

?e?lZer

a t

m e e r l n c s

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

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

t he

PJa t l c ra l

F r e l g l - t

Forwarders '

Assoc la t lon

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

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

t h e

X a t l o n a l

r re igh ' ; Forwardcrs ' Assoclat lon on

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

l n

parzgraph ( n ) above.

(0) a l l

accounLs

r e c e l ~ ~ e r l

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

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

members

a n d l o r

r e c o r d s

of amounts

charqed

t o nembers

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

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

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

. "

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,

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

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

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

ne l the r

? \ s soc la t lon

were

b e f o r e

and

u:~i :~arc what

Xr.

Rochfc r t ' S

< u t ~ , z s

rnlghc he as

L.:cccltlve

Dl rcc to r

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

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

s ta ternent made

t o

him

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

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

the Imnunl ty

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

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

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?

Ecc!es

C 2 s e

shou lc be app l l ed

hlm, I a!7 ccnfronted wich

t:Ie

same C155--cdlYAr, that. I have

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

ners : l lp ,

possess lon ,

ccs tody

cont ro l

o f

any

one

o r

more of tl-c de fendan t s .

I l eave

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

groun

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 ,

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.

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.

[1981] FCA 273

18 Sep 1981