Tradestock Pty ltd v T.N.T. (Management) Pty Ltd

[1983] FCA 269

CRTCRWORDS

i Inspection of documents by a s t r a n g e r t o l i t l g a t l o n - 0.46

r . G Federa l Cour t R u l e s - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f - pub l i c

! p o l i c y - p r o c e e d i n g s i n c o u r t s o f law open t o p u b l i c - r l g h t s

o f c i t i z e n s t o l i t i g a t e w i t h o u t f e a r of exposing themselves

t o i n q u i r y a t t h e h a n d s o f s t r a n g e r s t o l i t i g a t i o n -

l expec ta t ion tha t wrongdoers should be punished - process of

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

T r a d e s t o c k p t y . l t d . & O r s . v . T . N . T . -_-- ( M a n a g e m e n t ) - ____-- -_-_- P t y .

_.-	-
Limlted & O r s .

VG N o . 26 of 1 9 7 7

S ~ I t h e r s J.

7 October 1983.

Melbourne

P

.

,	+2
1
i

IN THE FEDERAL COURT O F A U S T R A L I A

V I C T O R I A D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y VG N o . 26 of 1 9 7 7

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

B e t w e e n : TRADESTOCK PTY. LIMITED,

WILLIAM JAMES FRENEN and

NOEL EDWARD STOCK

( P l a m t i f f s )

- A n d :

T . N . T . (MANAGEMENT) PTY.

L I M I T E D

( F i r s t D e f e n d a n t )

INTERSTATE P4RCEL EXPRESS

COMPANY-PTY. L I M I T E D

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

I P E C I N S U R A N C E L I K I T E D

( T h i r d D e f e n d a n t )

TARLEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

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

ANSETT RANSPORT INDUSTRIES

( O P E R A T I O N S ) P T Y . L I M I T E D

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

BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES LIMITED

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

MAYNE N I C K L E S S L I M I T E D

( S e v e n t h D e f e n d a n t )

YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY.

____

L I M I T E D

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

- c

2 .

U N I T E D TRANSPORT HOLDINGS

PTY. LIMITED

(Nlnth Defendant)

EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIM'CTED

(Tenth Defendant)

U N I T E D TRANSPORT HOLDINGS

AUSTRALIA PTY. L P I I T E D

(Eleventh Defendant)

TRADEX TRANSPORT PTY.

LIMlTED

(Twelfth Defendant)

Judge Making Order: Smithers J.

Date of Order: 7 October 1983

!

l Where Made: Melbourne.

O R D E R

I n t h e summonses b rough t r e spec t ive ly by the second ,

t h i r d , f o u r t h and f i f t h named defendants and heard on 1 2

September 1983 THE COURT ORDERS THAT u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r :

1. The d o c u m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a s A 2 , A 3 and A5

( 1 2 ) r e m a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l t o t h e p a r t i e s .

2 .	I n s p e c t i o n	b y	p a r t i e s	b e	b y	t h e i r	l e g a l	d v l s e r s
on ly .

3 . Each pa r ty shou ld hea r i t s own costs.

4

.... .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

V I C T O R I A D I S T R l C T R E G I S T K Y VG No. 26 of 1977

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

B e t w e e n : TRADCSTOCK PTY. LIMITCD,

WILLIAM JAMES FREWEN and

NOEL EDWARD S'FCJCK

( P l a i n t i f f s )

T . N . T . (MANAGEMENT) PTY.

- h d :

L I M I T E D

(F i rs t D e f e n d a n t )

INTERSTATE PARCEL EXPRESS

COMPAX'Y P T V . L I N I T E D

(Second Defendant )

I P E C I N S U W C E L I M I T E D

( T h i r d D e f e n d a n t )

TARLEE INVESTNENTS LIMITED

( Four th Def endan t )

&?SETT RANSPORT INDUSTRIES

( O P E R A T I O N S ) P T Y . L I N I T E D

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

BRAMBLES I N D U S T R I E S L I M I T E D

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

MAYNE N I C K L E S S L I M I T E D

(Seventh Defendant )

YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY.

L I M I T E D ( E i g h t h Defendant)

2 .

U N I T E D TRANSPORT HOLDINGS -

PTY. LIMlTED

l

(Ninth Defendant)

! EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMTTED

(Tenth Defendant)

i UNITED TRANSPORT H O L D I N G S

AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED

(Eleventh Defendant)

1

TRADEX TRANSPORT PTY.

i LIMITED

(Twelfth Defendant)

Coram:	Smithers J.
7 October	1983

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 1 5 A u g u s t 1 9 8 3 t h e f i r s t and f i f t h named

defendants appl ied upon summons for o r d e r s t h a t :

“1. Except t o t h e e x t e n t t o which l eave has

been given by orde: of 1st Ju ly , 1983 of

t h i s H o n o u r a b l e C o u r t , S e n i o r t h e

A s s i s t a n t Crown S o l i c i t o r ( a c t l n g for t h e

Trade Practices Commission) or any person

or e n t i t y who is n o t a p a r t y t o t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s , may n o t s e a r c h t h e i n

Regls t ry o f th i s Honourable Cour for t o r

i n s p e c t or obtain a y photocopy of or

o therwise have access t o the fo l lowing

documents i n t h e s a i d p r o c e e d i n g :

(a)	a l l	e x h l b l t s :
( b )	index	on cover oE Court f l l e ;

( c ) p leadmgs and o ther documents f i l ed ;

i

( d ) a l l o t h e r d o c u m e n t s o n f i l e w i t h t e

3 .

except ion of a l l t r a n s c r l p t and the Court

Regis te r ( i . e . P u b l i c R e g i s t e r ) ."

? On 16 August 1983 the s econd , t h i rd and fou r th named

defendants appl ied upon summons f o r o r d e r s i n t h e same terms

as above . cor respondence These summonses a ro ou t e of c e r t a l n

be tween the Vic tor ian Dis t r lc t Regis t ra r of

/

th i s C o u r t a n d t h e p a r t i e s t o th l s ac t ion and the A s s i s t a n t

Crown Solicitor concerning a r e q u e s t b y t h e Crown S o l i c i t o r

t o t h e D i s t r i c t R e g i s t r a r t h a t t h e l a t t e r h a v e a c c e s s t o

documents on t h e C o u r t f i l e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s a c t i o n .

T h i s a c t i o n commenced a s B N o . 194 of 1976 i n the

A u s t r a l l a n I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t . I t i s now VG N o . 26 of 1977 i n

t h i s C o u r t . It i s an ac t ion b rough t by the p l a i n t i i f f s

aga ins t t he s t e p s t a k e n b y t h e p l a i n t i f f above named defendants . The a c t i o n a r o s e o u t of

company ( T r a d e s t o c k ) t o a c t a s a

consul tan t and a broker for compan ies r equ i r ing t r anspor t

i se rv jces whereby Trades tock would advise as to the mos t

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

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

a r r ang ing for the supply o f those s e r v i c e s a t t h e c h e a p e s t

r a t e s o b t a i n a b l e . T h i s w a s a form of b r o k e r a g e n o t

p r e v i o u s l y i n o p e r a t i o n I n r e l a t i o n t o c o m p a n i e s s u c h as t h e

d e f e n d a n t s a t a l l or a t l e a s t f o r a v e r y l o n g t i m e .

T r a d e s t o c k a l l e g e d t h a t t h o s e c o m p a n i e s h a d e n g a g e d i n

conduct in cont ravent ion of 5.45 of t h e T r a d e P r a c t l c e s A c t

1974 ( the A c t ) i n t h a t i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h a t p r o v i s i o n a s

4.

1 .

amended by t he T rade P rac t l ces Amendment Act 1977 (No. 81 of

1972) they had agreed amongs t themselves tha t , In te r a l ia ,

t h e y would n o t d e a l w i t h or a c c e p t a n y i n t e r s t a t e o r o t h e r

c a r r y i n g b u s i n e s s o f f e r e d t o them through brokers inc luding

Trades tock i n i t s c a p a c l t y a s b r o k e r f o r c o m p a n i e s r e q u l r l n g

t r a n s p o r t services.

On l 3 A p r i l 1 9 7 7 t h e f l r s t , s e c o n d , t h i r d , f o u r t h ,

l

1

s i x t h , seventh and twel f th named defendants ought an o rde r

t h a t T r a d e s t o c k ' S a c t i o n h e s t a y e d p e n d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n b y

it o f s e c u r i t y f o r costs. On 2 May 1377 an order was made

t h a t so f a r as the a c t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e f i r s t , s e c o n d ,

t h i r d , f o u r t h , s l x t h , s e v e n t h and t w e l f t h d e f e n d a n t s It be

i

s t a y e d u n t i l c e r t a i n s e c u r i t y was provided 111 t h e sum of

$2,000 for each defendant or group of defendants wi th the

same i n t e r e s t . The r e a s o n s f o r t h e o r d e r a p p e a r i n

T r a d e s t o c k P t y . L t d . v . T .N.T. (Management) Pty. Ltd. E, O r s

(1977) 1 4 A.L.R. 52.

On 24 October 1977 Trades tock appl led for d i scharge

o f t h e o r d e r s t a y i n g i t s ac t ion . In t hen appea r lng t o m e

t h a t h e r e w e r e good p r o s p e c t s t h a t t h e plaintiff's a c t i o n

would succeed, by order dated 27 January 1978, I l i f t e d t h e

s t a y . The reasons appear more fu l ly in Tradcs tock P ty . L td .

v . T . N . T . - (Manaqement) PCy. L td . ( N o . 2 ) (1978) 1 7 A.L .R . 257.

However,. when l l f t l n g t h e s t a y I i n t i m a t e d a t p . 2 7 9 t h a t i f

cer ta in under tak ings were g iven t o the Cour t by defendants I

I

5 .

would re impose the s tay. The under tak ings were g iven , the

s t a y was reimposed and is s t i l l i n f o r c e . The a c t i o n a w a i t s

the outcomc of proceedings ir? G No. 44 of 1978 brought by the

Commission a g a l n s t c e r t a i n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s .

I

The defendants in those p roceedlngs are the f i r s t ,

s econd , f i f t h , s even th , e igh th and cen th de fendan t s i n ac t ion

No. VG 26 o f 1977 a n d a g a i n s t B r a m b l e s H o l d i n g s L t d ,

Associated Steamships Pty. Ltd. and Ipec Holdings Limited.

In t hose T r a d e p roceed ings t he c l a im, made p u r s u a n t t o s.77 o f t h e

P r a c t i c e s A c t 1974 a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t T . N . T .

(Management) Pty. Limited, Brambles Holdings Ltd. , Mayne

Nickless Ltd. Youngs Transpor t P ty . L td . , Ansett Transpor t

Indus t r ies (Opera t lons) P ty . L td . , Assoc ia ted S teamships P ty .

L td . , I pec Ho ld ings l t d . , and In t e r s t a t e Pa rce l Expres s P ty .

Ltd. i s t h a t i n 1976 t hey en te red i n to an ag reemen t o r

a r rangement wi th each o ther tha t they would not negot la te or

dea l wi th Trades tock i n r e s p e c t o f t h e c a r r y i n g o r f o r w a r d i n g

o f f r e i g h t or t h e a r r a n g i n g t h e r e f o r as p r o p o s e d b y

Trades tock or any o ther b roker for o r on beha l f of persons

seeking the se rv ices o f such defendants and gave e f f e c t t o

s u c h agreement or a r r angemen t con t r a ry to s.45 o f t h e A c t .

Proceeding G44 of 1978 does not a l lege conduct which

i s c r i m i n a l : s e e ss.77 and 78 o f t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t

1977 ( t h e any defendant , expose tha t defendant A c t ) . The conduc t a l l eged will, i f p roved aga lns t

t o a p e n a l t y o f n o t more

t h a n $250,000 ar?d o t h e r r e l i e f : see s s . 7 6 and 78 of the Act .

-., . ... . !V" '

6.

Proceedmg G 4 4 of 1978 i s a t p r e s e n t i n t h e c o u r s e o f b e i n g

i

i

h e a r d b y h i s Honour Mr. Just lce Frank1 in Sydney. There 1 s

n o d i s p u t e t h a t t h e r e q u e s t o f the A s s i s t a n t C r o w n S o l l c i t o r

proceeds from t h e d e s i r e o f t h e Commission t o a s c e r t a i n

whether the contents of any of the docuinents to whlch access

i s sought would, i f a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f a c t i o n G 4 4

of 1978 , t h e d e f e n d a n t s . assist t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o p r e s e n t i t s c a s e a g a i n s t

Var ious pa r t i e s hav ing made w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s t o

t h e Distr ic t R e g i s t r a r a s t o t h e terms upon which i n s p e c t i o n

s h o u l d be g r a n t e d , i f a t all, t h e D l s t r i c t R e g i s t r a r

i n t ima ted t o a l l p a r t i e s t h a t h e p r o p o s e d t o g r a n t a c c e s s t o

documents	in	h is	cus tody	CO	p a r t i e s	and	non-pa r t i e s	a
follows:-

"A.	PARTIES AND "NON" PARTIES
( I N C L . TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION)
MAY INSPECT AND PHOTOCOPY THE FOLLOWING:
1. A l l T r a n s c r i p t . . . l n c l u d l n g t h a t m a r k e d

conf iden t i a l be ing pages 230 -

3 4 9 A ( c o p y t r a n s c r i p t w l l l b e

suppl ied	by	the	C o u r t	Report ing
S e r v i c e )

2 . All E x h i b i t s . . . be ing marked

,SB,, , , V C " , , m D , , ,

*HE", *"F", *MR1"	*MR2" *"B1"
and *"L1"

Note: * ........ ....... Documents admi t t ed were xh lb l t s

r e s t r i c t e	t e n d e r e d	I n
t r a n s c r i p t

7 .

3 . Index on Cover of Court F l l e s

Court 4 . Regls ter .... ( i e P u b l i c r e g i s t e r )

5. PLEADINGS and other DOCUMENTS FILED I N C L U D I N G

1. Writ of Summons

2 . A l l e n t r i e s o f a p p e a r a n c e a n d n o t i c e s o f

change of Sol ic i tor

3.	A l l n o t i c e s of d i scove ry
4 .	A l l chamber summonses (sometlmes r e f e r r e d t o

a s summons)

5. A l l n o t i c e s f u r t h e r f o r a n d b t t e r

p a r t i c u l a r s

6 .	A l l judgments and Orders by the Court
7 .	A p p l i c a t i o n b y t h e 1 0 t h a n d t h e 1 1 t h
Defendants f i led 24.10.77
8.	Amended Statement of Claim

~ 9 . A l l Not ices of I n t e n t i o n t o Proceed

10. All Notices of Discont inuance

11.	A l l Defences t o S t a t e m e n t of Claim or Amended
Statement of Claim
1 2 .	A l l Correspondence and l ike documents on f l l e
from p a r t i e s a n d (Non P a r t i e s i f a n y r e c e i v e d
and on f i l e )

B.	PARTIES ALSO SOLICITORS INSTRUCTED BY THE
T R A D E P R A C T I C E S C O M Y i S S I O N (UUT NOT O T H E R N O N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P A R T I E S )

MAY I N S P E C T A N D P H O T O C O P Y A D D I T I O N A L -

DOCUMENTS AS FOLLOWS

Documents mentioned i n t h e o r d e r made by Mr J u s t i c e

on 1.7.83 l e . -

all documents produced by Plalnt l f fs on

subpoena !

a f f i d a v l t s a l l ( i n c l u d i n g e x h i b i t s

t h e r e t o ) f i l e d by P l a i n t i f f s

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

dur ing the proceedings

____________________-- - - -_- - - - - - s u c h d o c u m e n t s h a v l n q f i r s t b e e n

identified	t o R e g l s t r a r b y t h e S o l l c l t o r
-

f o r t h e P l T i n t i f f

C	NOTE :
-
--_ P a r t i e s o n l y will be shown ( a n d a l l o w e d t o
p h o t o c o p y ) a n y a n d a l l d o c u m e n t s h e l d i n t h e -
Resistry by the Req i s t r a r In p roceed inn No. VG 26
of-1977-except the >allowing

.. -

i

i 6.

I -

All documents marked f o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ...

marked YFI e t c .

i . e . Materials produced apparently on subpoena

having been g lven marking ident i f lca t ions

:

as fo l lows:

MFI "A" *MFI "l", and *MP1 "2"

NOTE: ..... documents marked for

-	identification i n
r e s t r i c t e d t r a n s c r i p t "

The Distr ic t them ob jec t ed t o t h e course which he proposed CO fo l low Regis t rar informed the p a r t i e s t h a t i f any of

they

I

should f i l e a summons r e t u r n a b l e b e f o r e a s i n g l e ~ u d g e of the

C o u r t s e e k i n g a n o r d e r t o t h e c o n t r a r y . The summonses now

b e f o r e me w e r e f i l e d i n c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e D l s t r i c t

i

R e g i s t r a r ' s i n t i m a t i o n

In t he i n s t an t ca se va r ious docun len t s were f i l ed by

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

I the Statement of Claim b u t t he re has been no hea r ing of t h a t

i	i	s u b s t a n t i v e	c a s e .	H o w e v e r ,	c o n t e s t e d	i n t e r l o c u t o r y
i

1	proceedings	d id	come	b e f o r e	t h e	C o u r t .	I n	those	p roceedings
1

1	t h e	prospect	o f	t h e	p l a i n t i f f	s u c c e e d i n g	i n	i t s	substantive
1

1	c la im was	in	i s sue .	Ora l	ev idence	was	g iven ,	on	beha l f	o f
:

I t h e p l a i n t i f f and of some o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i r e c t e d t o t h a t

i s s u e , and cer ta in documents were admi t t ed i n to ev idence o r

1 I

4	m a r k e d	i d p r o d u c e d	f o r	n t i f l c a t i o n .	Some	th se	documents	of	were
b

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

i

i	defendants	and	some,	upon	subpoens,	by	strangers	t o	t h e
I
?

proceedings . Var ious o f those documents a re stlll i n t h e

9 .

c u s t o d y o f t h e R e g i s t r a r a n d a r e t h o s e r e f e r r e d t o I n P a r t A

item 2 and P a r t C of the abovementioned annexure " A " . It i s

n o t clear c o n f l d e n t i a l l t y h i t h e r t o tha t any o f t hose documen t s a re now t h e s u b j e c t o f

imposed by the Court .

I t was decided by Franki J. in p roceed ing No. 44 of

1978 by a ludgment dated 2 J u n e 1 9 8 3 t h a t t h e c u r r e n t F e d e r a l

C o u r t r u l e s and i n p a r t i c u l a r 0.46 r . 6 of t h e s a i d r u l e s w e r e

a p p l i c a b l e t o an a p p l i c a t i o n made by the Commission f o r

a c c e s s t o the fol lowing documents In VG 26 of 1977:

"(a) the Cour t f i l e ;

(b) t h e transcript of t h e p r o c e e d m g s ;

( C ) a l l d o c u m e n t s i n t he C o u r t ' s c u s t o d y

produced in answer to any subpoena cal led

a t any s tage i n the Proceedings; and

( a ) all e x h i b l t s r e c e l v e d i n t o e v i d e n c e i n t h e

proceedings. "

Since then it has been assumed that the cu r ren t Fede ra l Cour t

r u l e s i n r e l a t i o n t o i n s p e c t i o n of documents a r e a p p l i c a b l e

genera l ly . Order 46 r . 6 of t h e c u r r e n t F e d e r a l C o u r t r u l e s

is i n the fol lowing terms:

" 6 . (1) E x c e p t w i th t he l eave o f t he Cour t o r a

Judge a p e r s o n who is n o t a p a r t y t o t h e

proceeding may n o t s e a r c h i n t h e R e g i s t r y f o r o r

i n s p e c t -

( a ) a n y j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , t a n s c r i p t o f a

proceeding, or ther document whlch t e

Cour t has ordered remain conf ident ia l :

( b ) a n y a f f i d a v i t :

10.

i n t e r r o g a t o r l e s	or	answer	t o	i n t e r r o g -
a t o r i e s ;

l i s t s of documents glven on discovery;

admissions;

ev idence taken on depos i t ion ;

any subpoena or any documents lodged with

t h e R e g i s t r a r i n a n s w e r t o a subpoena for

product lon of documents; or

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

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

t h e p a r t l e s .

Except with the l eave o f t he Cour t or a

Judge a p a r t y may n o t s e a r c h i n t h e R e g i s t r y f o r

or in spec t any documen t f l l ed t o suppor t an

app l i ca t ion t ha t any documen t , ev idence o r t h ing

be k e p t c o n f i d e n t l a l or that ny document or

th ing be p r lv i l eged f rom p roduc t ion . "

I n r e l a t i o n t o 0 . 4 6 r. 6 Franlci J. s t a t e d t h a t no l e a v e was

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

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

has been made) any , ekh ib i t ( o the r t han t ha t fo r wh ich an

o rde r for subpoena, the Cour t conf iden t l a l l t y has been made) , any p raec ipe fo r a

reg is te r and the index on the cover of

!

t h e f i l e shou ld r ema in conf lden t i a l unde r 0 .46 r . 6 ( l ) (h ) . un le s s the Regis t rar considers any such document

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

a g r e e m e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e District R e g i s t r a r ' s d e c l s i o n a s

t o access t o documen t s r e f e r r ed t o i n P a r t s B and C of

Annexure " A " , t h e o n l y q u a l i f i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e

a p p l l c a n t s a s k t h i s C o u r t t o r e s t r i c t a c c e s s t o documents in

P a r t C t o t h e p a r t l e s ' l e g a l a d v i s e r s .

11.

I n r e l a t i o n t o P a r t A Mr. Robb f o r t h e Commlsslon

s u b m i t s t h a t p u r s u a n t o 0 . 4 6 r.6 it would be appropriate

f o r t h i s C o u r t t o re ject t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o

t h e i n s p e c t i o n b y the Commission o f c e r t a i n of the docurnents

r e f e r r e d t o i n P a r t A of Annexure A . The documents of which

t h e Commission seeks i n s p e c t i o n a r e t h o s e ir, P a r t A of t h e

R e g i s t r a r ' s i n t i m a t i o n t o t h e p a r t i e s se t out above.

The a p p l i c a n t s do n o t o b l e c t t o t h e Commission having

a c c e s s t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t o r t h e C o u r t r e g i s t e r . They do

object t o t h e Commission having access t o any other documents

r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r t A of the R e g i s t r a r ' S i n t l m a t i o n .

I t is c o n v e n i e n t t o h a v e r e g a r d t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s

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

t o d o c u m e n t s f i l e d i n the

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

which have been admitted into evldence

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

h e a r i n g of these p roceed ings .

The Distr ic t R e g i s t r a r may have taken the v iew in

this c a s e tha t a l l documents i n h i s c u s t o d y n o t s p e c i f i e d i n

p a r a s ( a ) t o ( g ) of r . 6 of 0.46 are documents t o which, by

impl i ca t ion of t h a t r u l e , a n y member of the p u b l i c i s

e n t l t l e d t o access fo r i n spec t ion pu rposes un le s s a p a r t y t o

12.

the proceeding can put forward a good reason why such access

should no t be g ran ted . H e may a l s o h a v e t a k e n t h e v i e w t h a t

because t he p roceed ings i n p rog res s when the documents were

taken in to ev idence were open to the publ ic the documents

t a k e n i n t o e v i d e n c e w e r e a l s o , i n a s e n s e , p u b l i c . J u s t as a

person in C o u r t h e a r s t h e o ra l evidence so he has knowledge

of t h e admission in to ev ldence o f the documents which were

made exhib i t s i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t e v i d e n c e . C e r t a i n l y t h e

Commission argued tha t t hese v i ews were co r rec t and shou ld be

adopted by th i s C o u r t .

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

however , a q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r S e c a u s e o f some b a s i c

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t l n g t o t h e n a t u r e of Court proceedings a

d i f f e ren t v i ew shou ld be t aken . The p r o v i s i o n b y t h e S t a t e

of a c o u r t t o hea r c l a ims by one c i t i zen aga ins t ano the r i s

of course a basic f e a t u r e o f a c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y . I t i s t o

e n s u r e t h a t c i t i z e n s c a n d o b u s i n e s s or u n d e r t a k e

r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h each o the r w i th the conf idence tha t t hose

r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be governed and enforced by the law. I t

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

i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e l a w and be f r e e o f

f e a r t h a t i n t h e a s s e r t i o n a t l a w o f h i s r i g h t s , h e w i l l n o t

gene ra l ly speakmg, expose h imse l f t o l n j u r y a t the hands of

t h i r d p a r t i e s .

I n t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s it i s n o t so much t h e

\

13.

r i g h t s o f a c i t i z e n c l a i m i n g r e l i e f a t l a w who i s concerned

b u t t h e c i t i z e n a g a i n s t whom a c la im i s a s s e r t e d a g a m s t hlm

i n a Court law of by nother. That person does no t

v o l u n t a r i l y a t t e n d t h e C o u r t a n d c a l l e v i d e n c e . He i s forced

t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the proceedings t o avoid what he regards as

i

an un jus t i f i ed defending c l a im aga ins t h im. I t i s a s a r e s u l t o f h i s

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

t h e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o h i m i n s u p p o r t o f h i s case . The

defendant adduces vidence t o suppor t h i s de fence . The

evidence may cons is t o f documents be longing t o and i n t h e

c u s t o d y o f s t r a n g e r s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n . Such documents w l l l

be b r o u g h t t o c o u r t on subpoena. I n i t i a l l y t h e y w i l l be

p l a c e d i n the custody of the cour t awa l t ing t he i r admiss ion

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

has a d i s c r e t i o n t o permit t h e i r i n s p e c t i o n by t h e p a r t l e s t o

the l i t i g a t i o n . I f , when t ende red i n ev idence , t hey a r e

r e j e c t e d , t h e y w i l l b e h e l d f o r e t u r n t o the person who

produced them to the Cour t I f . a ccep ted i n to ev idence t hey

r ema in in the possess ion of the Cour t fo r the purposes of t h e

case , inc luding any appea l proceedings .

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

evldence do so, p a r t l y a t least, as a consequence of the

d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n c e d e t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m . Thus t h e y come i n t o t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e

Court as a r e s u l t o f t'ne Cour t be ing access ib l e t o t h e

p l a i n t i f f and exerc is ing i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider and

14.

1

p e r h a p s e n f o r c e t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a l m . The defendant 1 s

there o n l y t o defend himself . And it i s an important aspect

o f p u b l i c

p o l i c y c l a i m , t h e v a l i d i t y o f w h i c h h e c h a l l e n g e s , tha t a person sued by an adversary on a

be f r e e t o defend

h i m s e l f . A f e a r t h a t t o proceed with hls defence would

i n v o l v e d i s c l o s u r e s t o s t r a n g e r s which might be i n ~ u r i o u s t o

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

t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h e r e is the p r i n c l p l e , a l s o

suppor t ed by pub l i c po l i cy , t ha t t he p roceed ings in cour t s o f

law be McPherson v . McPherson open t o t h e p u b l i c . Scott v . S c o t t C19131 AC 417;

C19361 AC 1 7 7 . The p o l l c y i s t o

permit the conduct of j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o be seen and

hea rd SO t h a t c o n f i d e n c e of the p u b l l c i n t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y

and thoroughness of ~udic ia l p roceedlngs may be promoted and

ma in ta ined . Bu t t h i s a spec t o f pub l i c p o l i c y i s genera l and

n o t d i r e c t e d t o t h e i s sues i n any p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . T h a t it

may enab le a s t r a n g e r t o t h o s e issues t o hear evidence which

he can use t o h l s advan tage on another occasion i s b u t

i n c i d e n t i a l t o t h e p u b l i c f r e e d o m t o hear and see , bu t no t

t he pu rpose t he reo f . Accord ing ly , i f the s t r a n g e r , whose

a t t e n d a n c e a t the C o u r t was achieved by re ference t o this

genera l aspec t o f po l icy , becomes , or perhaps always w a s , an

a d v e r s a r y o f o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s it is n o t a p p a r e n t t h a t h e

shou ld have p r lv i l eges t o p u r s u e h i s p r i v a t e a d v a n t a g e n o t

b e i n g h i s i n t e r e s t a s a mere member o f t h e p u b l i c . And of

c o u r s e e v e n t h e r i g h t t o b e p r e s e n t i s sometiomes denied to

members of the pub l i c because o f the s e c r e t or c o n f i d e n t i a l

15.

n a t u r e , o n e t o b o t h r p a r t i e s , of t h e e v i d e n c e .

Accordingly, when a p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d f o r p r l v a t e p u r p o s e s

l

seeks to pu r sue t hose pu rposes by s eek ing access t o t h e

documents he ld by the Cour for t the p u r p o s e s o f l i t i g a t l o n

betwecn other persons, it i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e e a n y good reason

f o r p e r m i t t i n g him to have s u c h a c c e s s . I would t h i n k t h a t

where t hose pu rposes i nc lude t he u se o f t he i n fo rma t ion

ga ined f rom such access to pursue a course a t law i n s u p p o r t

of a j u s t i f i c a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t o n e o r b o t h o f the p a r t i e s t h e

f o r s u c h a c c e s s i s no t appa ren t . I t i s t o be

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

l a w be o p e n t o the p u b l i c i s a lways s u b j e c t t o t h e

requi rements of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f l u s t i c e : S C O t t v .

S c o t t ( s u p r a )

I n t h i s c a s e t h e n t i t y s e e k i n g a c c e s s i s t h e

Commission. I t knows t h e n a t u r e o f t h e l i t l g a t i o n . Its

d i s c l o s e d a n d o n l y i n t e r e s t i s t h a t it hopes the c o n t e n t s o f

the documents sought w i l l h e l p it t o e s t a b l i s h c o n t r a v e n t i o n s

o f t h e A c t by one or more o f t h e p a r t i e s now be ing s u e d by

it. I ts inspec t ion o f the documents would be by i t s own

admission a mere f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n . What the Commission

argues, however, i s t h a t the documents t o which a c c e s s i s

sought by it are publ ic documents and not confident ia l and

t h e r e f o r e it i s e n t i t l e d t o i n s p e c t the documents. T h e i s s u e

i s whether any of the documents t o which access i s sought

s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as c c n f i d e n t i a l p u r s u a n t t o 0.46

16.

i

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

c o n s i d e r a t i o n m u s t be given. That i s tha t wrongdoers should

be punished. I t might promote the proper conducr of business

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

punishment for contravent lon of the A c t i f t h e Commission

were given c o n s i d e r a t i o n . access t o documents such as those now under

I n t h i s c o n f l i c t o f p o l i c i e s it i s my view t h a t t h a t

m o s t requi r ing implementa t ion in the c i rcumstances before me

i s t h a t a l i t i g a n t a g a i n s t whom a c i t i z e n h a s made a c la im

shall he a b l e t o conduct h i s de fence be fo rc the C o u r t w i thou t

f e a r t h a t the c o u r t i t s e l f may assist an adversary of h is t o

ga the r i n fo rma t lon t o be u sed aga ins t h im. I do no t t h ink

t h a t it c a n b e s a i d t h a t there is a n y t h i n g i n t h e n a t u r e o f a

r i g h t i n a person who has a p o t e n t l a l c l a i m a g a i n s t a n o t h e r

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

of d o c u m e n t s d u r i n g a n d f o r t h e purpose o f

p a r t i c u l a r l i t i g a t i o n , a s a source o f in format ion t o be used

by him in some respect a d v e r s e t o h is i n t e r e s t s . S t i l l less

is there any th ing in the n a t u r e of a r l g h t i n s u c h a per son

t o s e e k t h e a c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f the c o u r t i n h i s s e a r c h f o r

s u c h informat ion . I take n o t e of t h e s u b m i s s i o n t h a t

d o c u m e n t s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r e d t o i n 0.46 r . 6

a re pr ima facie " p u b l i c " , b u t a d l s c r e t i o n is r e t a i n e d b y t h e

17.

R e g i s t r a r a n d t h e C o u r t t o t r e a t t h o s e d o c u m e n t s a s

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

t h a t t h e y should be so t r e a t e d .

1

The freedom of a c c e s s t o t h e C o u r t , p a r t l c u l a r l y o f

persons who are s u e d , t o p u r s u e t h e i r d e f e n c e a c c o r d i n g t o

the p rocedures o f the c o u r t w i t h o u t f e a r t h a t t h a t p r o c e s s

w i l l expose them t o t h e risk t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l a s s i s t

p e r s o n s h a v i n g i n t e r e s t s a d v e r s e t o them by giving access t o

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

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

mind , be pub l i c na tu re o f very p rec ious as t he hea r ing an aspec t o f publ ic po l icy . The

for the purposes which it s e r v e s

d o e s n o t c o n f l i c t with this. N o r do I c o n s i d e r t h a t I n th i s

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

wrongdoers would j u s t i f y t h e d i s c l c s u r e b y t h e C o u r t t o the

Commission of documents in i t s posses s ion fo r t he pu rpose o f

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

claim b y o n e c i t i z e n a g a i n s t a n o t h e r .

I do no t o v e r l o o k t h a t t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e Commission

i n s e e k i n g a c c e s s t o the documen t s a r e t o suppor t a c i v i l

a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s b y it aga ins t one or more

of the d e f e n d a n t s i n th ls case . However, t h a t a c t l o n i s t o

seek the imposi t ion of a pena l ty in r e spec t o f conduc t wh ich

i s forb idden by the A c t . And it i s t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f the

Commission as a n e n t l t y h a v l n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h a t

18.

respec t which is i n i s s u e . However, a l though it was my view,

as expres sed fo r t he pu rposes o f an in t e r locu to ry app l i ca t ion

b y d e f e n d a n t s p rospec t f o r s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s , t h a t h e p l a l n t i f f ' s

of s u c c e s s i n t h e i r a c t i o n was good, there i s n o t

and mlght never be any f indlng that ny defendant has

contravened any provislon of the Ac i .

It appears to be t h e i n t e n t i o n o f rr .5 and 6 of 0.46

t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o d o c u m e n t s ir! t h e c u s t o d y of t h e

R e g i s t r a r o t h e r t h a n those r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a s (a) t o (9 ) of

sub- ru le (1) it i s t h e d u t y o f the r e g i s t r a r on be ing

r eques t ed t o permit a s t r a n g e r t o the l i t i g a t i o n t o sea rch In

his r e g i s t r y for , inspec t , t o o r documen t s t o cons ide r

whether it would be appropriate for him to permit such search

and inspec t ion . H e would be r e q u i r e d t o consider whether

such documents p a r t i e s . should be t reated as confident ia l t o t h e

Such a ques t ion cou ld on ly be dec ided by r e fe rence

t o the l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t l e s t o t h e l i t i g a t l o n

i n the ma ln tenance o f p r ivacy aga ins t t he pe r son s eek ing t o

search a n 3 i n s p e c t . In some cases such as where t r a d e

s e c r e t s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . c o n c e r n e d there would be spec ia l reasons for

I n c a s e s o f a m o r e g n e r a l n a t u r e ,

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

po l icy d lscussed above would be re levant . The purpose of the

s t r a n g e r ' S reques t and the documents sought t o be i n spec ted

would be re levant . What migh t be conf iden t i a l t o t h e p a r t i e s

as a g a i n s t a per son wi th in t e re s t s adve r se t o t h e p a r t l e s o r

19.

one of them igh t no t he conf ident ia l aga ins t a r e s e a r c h

s t u d e n t . I n the c i rcumstances o f th i s case once the n a t u r e

and purpose o f the "s t ranger" was made known t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

: d e c i s i o n would be that the r e q u e s t f o r the search and

i n s p e c t i o n of cer ta in documents be r fused. There 1 s no

d i s p u t e t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n now a r i s e s b e f o r e m e pursuant t o

the i n t i m a t i o n o f t h e Registrar t o t h e p a r t l e s and under 0.46

r . e ( l ) ( a ) .

Order 46 r . 6 ( l ) ( a ) - ( g ) a p p e a r s t o c o n c e r n d o c u m e n t s

whlch have no t passed in to ev idence in the course o f the

proceedings . All other documents appear to be t h e i n

category of dobuments which are prima facie public b u t which

e i t h e r t h e R e g i s t r a r or t h e C o u r t may c o n s i d e r to be

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

As s t a t e d a b o v e t h e r e 1 s no contest between the

p a r t i e s c o n c e r n i n g the t r a n s c r i p t or t h e C o u r t r e g l s t e r ( i . e .

t h e p u b l i c Commission r e g l s t e r ) . Therefore I would o r d e r t h a t t h e

h a v e a c c e s s t o t h o s e two i tems.

Having regard to my views as t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p u b l i c

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

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

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

on f i l e f rom the pa r t i e s and non-pa r t i e s . The

index con ta ins t he names of persons who have made t h e

r-

20.

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

I do n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t r e l e v a n t p o l l c y s h o u l d o p e r a t e

t o deny access t o t h e Commiss ion of i tems 5(1) - (11) o f P a r t

A of annexure A. Those documents do no more than indjcate

the ex l s t ence and course of a proceedmg.

Otherwise I ag ree wi th the t e rms of access gran ted by

the District R e g i s t r a r a n d w o u l d o n l y a d d t h a t i n r e l a t i o n t o

t h e d o c u m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n P a r t A 2 , 3 and 5(12) and Par t C

of t h e t h e p a r t i e s ' l e g a l a d v i s e r s R e g i s t r a r ' s i n t i m a t i o n t h a t a c c c s s b e r e s t r i c t e d t o

who i n r e l a t i o n t h e r e t o will bea r

i n mind the p r lnc ip l e s e spoused i n -- Riddick v . Thames Board

Mills Ltd . C19771 3 WLR 63.

I n the o rde r o f t he Cour t t he documen t r e fe r r ed to a s

the R e g i s t r a r ' s - i n t i m a t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e d e s c r i p t l o n

"Annexure A t o t h e a f f l d a v l t o f J a m e s Rodon King sworn t h e

four teenth day of Augus t 1983 and f i led here in . I'

1 .

l