Legal Research
Cases
Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd

Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 1 March 1984 16 min read

Contents

On this page

CATCHWORDS

Practice

Evidence

Subpoena duces tecum to corporation in

action to recove; a penalty

Whether subpoena should be set

aside

Whether privilege against self incrimination

exists.

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION v. T.N.T.

MANAGF,MENT PTY. LIMITED & ORS.

No. G.44 of 1978

Franki S.

1 March 1984

Sydney

i	IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
I

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No. G.44 of 1978
GENERAL DIVISION	)
Between:

Plaintiff

COMMISS ON

PRACTICES

TRADE

-and-

T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED	First Defendant
BmlBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED	Second Defendant
MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED	Third Defendant
YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED	Fourth Defendant
ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES	Fifth Defendant
(OPERqTIONS) PTV. LIMITED

EXPRESS

FREIGHT

PTY. LIM 2

Sixth

Defendant

ASSOCIATED STEAMSHIPS

PT'J LIMITED

Seventh

D f dant

IPEC HOLDINGS LIMITED	Eighth Defendant
INTFXSTATE P-UCEL EXPRESS CO. PTY.	Nlnth Defendant
LIMITED

O R D E R S

JUDGE :

Franki J.

DATE OF ORDERS: 1 March

1984 and 8 March 1984

Sydney

MADE:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	Each subpoena be'set aslde.

2. The

plaintiff

pay

the

costs

of each

defendant

these

appllcatlons.

. - - . .

- .

CATCHGJORDS

Practice -

Evidence

Subpoena duces tecum to corporation in

action to recove; a penalty - Whether subpoena should be set aside - Whether privilege against self incrimination exists.

TRADE PRACTICES CO~IISSIOM

v. T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITD & QRS.

NO. ~ . a 4

of 1978

Franki J.

1 March 1984

Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No.	G 44	of	1978
GENERAL DIVISION	1
Between:

TR4DE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Plaintiff

-and-

T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED	Flrst Defendant
BIWMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED	Second Defendant
MYNE NICKLESS LIMITD	Third Defendant

YOUNGS TRANSPORT

PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

.ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES	Fifth Defendant
(OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED

EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY.

LIMITED

Sixth Defendant

ASSOCIATED STEAMSHIPS PTY. LIMITED	Seventh Defendant
IPEC HOLDINGS LIMITED	Eighth Defendant

INTERSTATE	PARCEL	EXPRESS	CO.	PTY.	Ninth	Defendant
LIMITED

O R D E R S

JUDGE

Franki J.

DATE OF ORDERS:	1 March 1984 and 8 March 1984
rWERE MADE:	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Each subpoena be' set aslde.

The plaintiff pay tk? coszs of ea& deftndant in thlse

applicatlons.

__ .. - - ...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

)

NEbl SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTXY	)	No. G.44 of 1978
GENERAL DIVISION	)
Between:
TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION	Plaintiff

-and-

T.N.T. WWAGEMENT PTY. LIMITD	First Defendant
BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED	Second Defendant
MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED	Third Defendant

YOUNGS TRANSPORT

PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

ANSEIT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES	Fifth Defendant
(OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED
EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED	Sixth Defendant
ASSOCIATED STEAMSHIPS PTY. LIMITED	Seventh Defendant

IPEC HOLDINGS LIMITED	Elqhth Defendant
INTERSTATE PAXEL EXPRESS CO. PTY.	Ninth Defendant
LIMITED
1 March 1984

REASONS FOR JUDGHENT

FRANK1 J.

Almost at

the

concluslon of the case for the Trade

Practices Commission, a subpcena duces tecum ~7as

served on each

__ - _-

- -

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1984] FCA 47
Decision Date: 1 Mar 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Trade Practices Commission brought an action against multiple defendants, including TNT Management Pty Ltd, seeking penalties for alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The Commission issued subpoenas duces tecum to the defendants, requiring them to produce certain documents. The defendants applied to set aside the subpoenas on the basis that they invoked the privilege against self-incrimination. The court had to decide whether the subpoenas should be set aside and whether the privilege against self-incrimination applied to corporations in Australia.

The court found that there was binding authority for the proposition that the courts would not lend their processes for discovery or production of documents in proceedings for a penalty, unless waived. This principle was based on the existence of a privilege against exposure to a penalty. The court distinguished between cases where the object of the action was to impose and recover a penalty and cases concerning the extension of the privilege against self-incrimination to corporations. The court concluded that the subpoenas should be set aside as they would compel the defendants to produce documents that might tend to incriminate them, and the privilege against self-incrimination applied to corporations in Australia.

The court ordered that each subpoena be set aside, and the Trade Practices Commission pay the costs of each defendant in these applications.

Orders