United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro (No 4)

[2010] FCA 791

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 4) [2010] FCA 791

Citation:	United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 4) [2010] FCA 791
Parties:	UNITED GROUP RESOURCES PTY LTD ABN 17 114 888 201, AGC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ABN 57 079 939 898, MODERN ACCESS SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 87 129 312 590, DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING POWER PTY LTD ABN 53 000 983 700, MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ABN 52 008 861 836, CBI CONSTRUCTORS PTY LTD ABN 90 000 612 411, DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 58 116 776 991, FREO GROUP LIMITED ABN 64 009 325 124, MAMMOET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 77 075 483 644, PCH GROUP LTD ABN 41 009 120 021, RCR CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ABN 97 063 053 814, RCR POSITRON PTY LTD ABN 38 106 084 879 and JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD ABN 11 004 282 268 v BRAEDEN CALABRO AND OTHERS LISTED IN THE RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULE A AS AMENDED and THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
File number:	WAD 14 of 2010
Judge:	MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment:	27 July 2010
Catchwords:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - service of originating Process – O 7 of the Federal Court Rules - where service was not effected personally - where respondents had notice of proceedings - where respondents appeared conditionally - dispensing with the requirements of the Rules – O 1 r 8 Federal Court Rules
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules O 1 r 8, O 7, O 9 r 7(1)(c)
Cases cited:	Ainsworth v Redd (1990) 19 NSWLR 78 Howship Holdings Pty Ltd v Leslie [No 2] (1996) 41 NSWLR 542 Laurie v Carroll (1957) 98 CLR 310 Lazar v Taito (Aust) Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 395 Metacorp Pty Ltd v Andeco Construction Group Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 199 National Commercial Bank v Wimborne (1979) 11 NSWLR 156 Pino v Prosser [1967] VR 835 Porter v Freudenberg (1915) 1 KB 857 Robinson v Kuwait Liaison Office (1997) 145 ALR 68 Sogelease Australia Ltd v Griffin (2003) 128 FCR 399 United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (2010) 220 IR 153 United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 2) (2010) 192 IR 160 United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 3) (2010) 192 IR 170
Date of hearing:	2 June 2010
Date of last submissions:	25 June 2010
Place:	Perth
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	52
Counsel for the Applicant:	K de Kerloy with K Reid
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Freehills
Counsel for the various Conditional Respondents:	J Fiocco with A Dzieciol, R Pelligra and D Schapper
Solicitor for the Various Conditional Respondents:	Fiocco’s Lawyers Gibson & Gibson D Schapper
Solicitor for the Intervener:	B Mueller
Counsel for the Intervener:	Clayton Utz

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	WAD 14 of 2010

BETWEEN:

UNITED GROUP RESOURCES PTY LTD ABN 17 114 888 201
First Applicant

AGC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ABN 57 079 939 898
Second Applicant

MODERN ACCESS SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 87 129 312 590
Third Applicant

DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING POWER PTY LTD ABN 53 000 983 700
Fourth Applicant

MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ABN 52 008 861 836
Fifth Applicant

CBI CONSTRUCTORS PTY LTD ABN 90 000 612 411
Sixth Applicant

DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 58 116 776 991
Seventh Applicant

FREO GROUP LIMITED ABN 64 009 325 124
Eighth Applicant

MAMMOET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 77 075 483 644
Ninth Applicant

PCH GROUP LTD ABN 41 009 120 021
Tenth Applicant

RCR CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ABN 97 063 053 814
Eleventh Applicant

RCR POSITRON PTY LTD ABN 38 106 084 879
Twelfth Applicant

JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD ABN 11 004 282 268
Thirteenth Applicant

AND:

BRAEDEN CALABRO AND OTHERS LISTED IN THE RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULE A AS AMENDED
Respondents

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
Intervener

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 JULY 2010
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motions are dismissed. 

2.The matter be listed for directions on 31 August 2010 at 10.45 am.

3.There be liberty to apply.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	WAD 14 of 2010

BETWEEN:

UNITED GROUP RESOURCES PTY LTD ABN 17 114 888 201
First Applicant

AGC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ABN 57 079 939 898
Second Applicant

MODERN ACCESS SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 87 129 312 590
Third Applicant

DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING POWER PTY LTD ABN 53 000 983 700
Fourth Applicant

MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ABN 52 008 861 836
Fifth Applicant

CBI CONSTRUCTORS PTY LTD ABN 90 000 612 411
Sixth Applicant

DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 58 116 776 991
Seventh Applicant

FREO GROUP LIMITED ABN 64 009 325 124
Eighth Applicant

MAMMOET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 77 075 483 644
Ninth Applicant

PCH GROUP LTD ABN 41 009 120 021
Tenth Applicant

RCR CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE PTY LTD ABN 97 063 053 814
Eleventh Applicant

RCR POSITRON PTY LTD ABN 38 106 084 879
Twelfth Applicant

JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD ABN 11 004 282 268
Thirteenth Applicant

AND:

BRAEDEN CALABRO AND OTHERS LISTED IN THE RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULE A AS AMENDED
Respondents

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER
Intervener

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE:	27 JULY 2010
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. There are in excess of 1500 respondents to this proceeding.  It is now contended for several hundred of the respondents that have entered conditional appearances through their solicitors (the conditional respondents) that they were not personally served with the originating process some months ago.  A declaration to that effect is sought.

   BACKGROUND

2. This proceeding commenced with an urgent application for interim injunctive relief earlier this year as a result of the alleged unlawful industrial action by all of the respondents in December 2009 and January 2010.  The conduct was allegedly ongoing at the commencement of the proceeding. 

3. Leave for the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner to intervene was granted.  The Commissioner has generally supported the positions taken by the applicants who employ the respondents.  For example, the Commissioner supported the application pursued by the applicants ex parte.  The action was said to be in contravention of the Woodside Pluto LNG Project 2009 No 2 order of Fair Work Australia dated 23 January 2010, the Building and Construction Ministry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

4. Judgment in the first urgent matter was given in United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (2010) 220 IR 153 (United Group No 1).  The reasons for granting urgent injunctive relief are set out therein. 

5. A short time after granting the original orders, I made further orders extending the injunctive relief in United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 2) (2010) 192 IR 160 (United Group No 2).   In United Group No 2, I noted (at [4]-[5]):

   4        There are, as indicated in United Group No 1, in excess of 1500 respondents.  No affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents.  One of the main concerns in relation to granting an interlocutory injunction until trial was that none of the respondents has been given express notice of the intention to apply for such an interlocutory injunction today.  In normal circumstances, but for the considerations which appear elsewhere in these reasons, on that basis alone I would have been disinclined to grant further relief, let alone an interlocutory injunction until trial.  However, given the history disclosed on the evidence, I was persuaded that limited further orders should be made. 

   5        As reflected in United Group No 1, I am satisfied on the evidence that there is an arguable case that the respondents have engaged in ‘unlawful industrial action’ (as defined there and below) at the Pluto LNG Project at the Burrup Peninsula (the Project) in contravention of the Woodside Pluto LNG Project 2009 No. 2 order of Fair Work Australia dated 23 January 2010 and in breach of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

6. I granted an extension of the relief initially ordered after examination of the following considerations (at [24]-[29]);

   24       The balance of convenience strongly favours short term relief being extended.  On the basis of the evidence at present, the effect on the applicants and the owners of the Project, Woodside Burrup Pty Ltd (Woodside), of further industrial action is most significant with an estimated direct cost alone exceeding $500,000 a day.

   25       Additionally, there are potential consequences of industrial action such as damage to the reputation of the applicants and liquidated damages for delay.  Woodside, in turn, would, if the delay continued, face potential losses arising from loss of revenue due to production delay.  These considerations, extending as they do, to third parties, are nevertheless relevant:  Patrick Stevedores Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 82 IR 87.

   26       The prospect of the respondents being able to meet an award in damages for such loss is unrealistic. 

   27       Moreover, the proper formulation of the test concerning the adequacy of damages is not whether they are an adequate remedy but whether it is ‘just in all the circumstances’ that the applicants should be ‘confined to a remedy in damages’:  CBI Construction Pty Ltd v Abbott per Gilmour J (at [70]). 

   28       Underlying this dispute is said to be the issue concerning ‘motelling’ discussed in United Group No 1.  There is evidence that some or all respondents who fly in, fly out to their work site, oppose a circumstance in which they are required to return to different temporary accommodation from that occupied on the previous work interval.  While it might be thought that some practical measure could be adopted to address concerns arising from this complaint, the prospect of ‘motelling’ for a short term appears to be the only possible adverse consequence of restraining the respondents from engaging in further unlawful industrial action.  On the other hand, they will at least, by returning to and remaining at work, be paid in accordance with Workplace Agreements. 

   29       For those reasons, as the balance of convenience strongly favours the orders being extended for a finite period, with liberty to apply being granted, I made orders for a brief period of time.  These will preserve the status quo. 

7. I also made provision for substituted service of the orders made on that date.  That provision was made for these reasons (at [30]):

   For service under 0 7 of the Federal Courts Rules, the respondents’ proper addresses are their home addresses rather than their addresses at the work site.  However they travel from their home addresses to the work site which they occupy while employed at the site.  The injunction primarily concerns their conduct at the work site.  Wide publicity has surrounded this dispute including the making or (sic-of) these and previous orders.  The Unions of which the respondents are members are and will be well aware of these and the previous orders in United Group No 1.  In accordance with the power in O 7 r 9 of the Federal Court Rules I have made provision for substituted service of the orders that are made below, as the circumstances of the case require prompt service and personal service is impractical. 

8. On 18 February 2010, in United Group Resources Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 888 201 v Calabro (No 3) (2010) 192 IR 170 (United Group No 3), I extended the interim injunction until trial or further order of the Court. 

9. There have been several directions hearings since that time.  Three groups of respondents have been represented at those hearings pursuant to conditional appearances or appearances.  The three groups of conditional respondents are members of three different unions.  No motion in similar terms has been made by any other respondents but some individuals have submitted that they should not have been joined at the outset.  Proceedings against some of those respondents have been discontinued. 

   THESE MOTIONS

10. By three notices of motion, the conditional respondents seek a declaration under O 9 r 7(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules (the rules) that the originating process in this action has not been duly served on those respondents.  The motions are supported by affidavits.

11. Following a preliminary directions hearing prior to the hearing of the motion, a request was made of the applicants’ solicitors for information confirming the method of service of the originating process on each individual respondent but no response specific to particular individual respondents was received. 

    THE RELEVANT RULES

12. Order 7 relevantly provides as follows:

    1        Originating process

    (1)Subject to the provisions of this Order, originating process shall be served personally on each respondent.

    (2)The copy for service shall be signed and sealed as mentioned in Order 4, rule 7.

    (3)If a respondent to an originating process:

    (a)enters an appearance; or

    (b)files a defence; or

    (c)appears before the Court in response to the process;

    the originating process is taken to have been served on the respondent personally when the earliest of those events occurred, unless personal service on an earlier day is established.

    2        Personal service: how effected

    (1)Personal service of a document is effected on:

    (a)an individual — by leaving a copy of the document with him;

    …

    (2)If a person refuses to accept service of a document, personal service may be effected on him by putting the document down in his presence and telling him the nature of it.

    (3)It shall not be necessary in order to effect personal service that the original document be shown.

    …

    3        Mode of service

    A document which is not an originating process and which is required or permitted to be served in any proceeding may be served personally, but unless personal service is expressly required, it need not be served personally.

    4        Ordinary service: how effected

    (1)Where personal service of a document is not required, the document may be served:

    (a)by leaving a copy of the document at the proper address of the person to be served between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the afternoon on any day on which the Registry in that State or Territory is open; or

    (b)by sending a copy of the document by pre paid post addressed to the person to be served at his or her proper address; or

    (c)where any enactment of the Commonwealth or of the State or Territory in which service is to be effected provides for service of a document on a corporation or organisation by serving the document in accordance with such provision; or

    (d)if a person to be served has filed a notice for service at an exchange box of a solicitor under paragraph 7 (1) (a) of this Order — by leaving a copy of the document, addressed to that solicitor, in that exchange box; or

    (e)if a person to be served has filed a notice for service by facsimile transmission under paragraph 7 (1) (b) of this Order — by sending the document to the facsimile number specified in the notice; or

    (f)if a person to be served has filed a notice for service by electronic communication under paragraph 7 (1) (c) of this Order — by sending the document to the email address specified in the notice.

    (2)For the purposes of subrule (1), the proper address of a person shall be the address for service of that person in the proceeding but if, at the time when the copy is left or posted pursuant to subrule (1), the person has no address for service in the proceeding, the person’s usual or last known place of business or of abode shall be the person’s proper address.

    (3)The time of service of any document for the purpose of any proceeding shall, where the copy of the document:

    (a)is sent by pre paid post in accordance with paragraph (1) (b) — be seven days after the copy is so sent; or

    (b)is left in an exchange box in accordance with paragraph (1) (d) — be two days after the copy is so left; or

    (c)is sent by facsimile transmission in accordance with paragraph (1) (e) — be one day after the copy is transmitted excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays; or

    (d)is sent by electronic communication in accordance with paragraph (1) (f) — be one day after the copy is sent.

    (4)For paragraphs (3) (b), (c) and (d), mention of a day or days does not include a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday.

    …(emphasis added)

13. Rule 1 provides, in effect, for personal service of originating process and ordinary service of other documents.  The requirement for personal service of originating process is a requirement which is said to be strictly construed:  Ainsworth v Redd (1990) 19 NSWLR 78 at 83. For the respondents it is argued that service of the originating process is a jurisdictional fact: see Laurie v Carroll (1957) 98 CLR 310 at 324 and Ainsworth at 84.

14. The onus is on the applicants to prove that the originating process has been served on the respondents in a manner which conforms with the service requirements of the rules. 

    CONSIDERATION

15. There is certainly evidence that some of the conditional respondents were not personally served with the originating process. 

16. There is also evidence that in a small number of cases, some conditional respondents were not served in any sense with the process in that they did not at any time receive a copy of it.

17. On the other hand, there is no evidence that any moving respondent was either unaware of the proceeding or unaware that he or she was a respondent to the proceeding.  Given the substantial publicity surrounding the commencement of the proceeding and the letters referred to below (at 25) this may not be surprising.  This is a significant issue in light of the approach taken by the courts as to what will be personal service.

18. For the conditional respondents, it is argued that the applicants chose to join some 1500 respondents and must be taken to have been aware from the inception of the proceeding that the originating process was required to be served personally on each of them.  It had been open to the applicants, on the first return date, at the hearing of the urgent application for the applicants to seek an order for substituted service.  Although the applicants sought and obtained an order for substituted service in relation to the further or extended order made by the Court on 5 February 2010, that order was not stated to apply to either the order made on 28 January 2010 or to the originating process. 

19. The respondents also contend that there is no adequate explanation for failure to personally serve considering that it was open to the applicants to serve the conditional respondents personally at work.  However this argument overlooks the fact that the conditional respondents were allegedly not attending work which was the very reason for the commencement of the proceeding and for the alternative measures taken to attempt to effect service.

20. For the respondents, it is argued that the applicants have failed to adduce any evidence regarding:

    (a)       the steps that they have taken to serve each of the respondents ‘personally’; or

    (b)why it is or was ‘impractical’ to serve the respondents personally with the application – see O 7 r 9(1) and Porter v Freudenberg (1915) 1 KB 857 at 888-889.

1. At a technical level while there is some force in these submissions, I do not accept that they are entirely correct.   The applicants have relied on affidavits of Mr Jack Peter Lee, Mr Rodney Charles Burnby and Mr Adie Rama Kadir which all relate to the steps taken to achieve service. 

2. Mr Kadir is engaged with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA (CCIWA) and is an Employee Relations Advisor.  He says that after the originating application and orders were made, he assisted in relation to the instruction of the Karratha bailiff and the Dampier bailiff regarding serving the originating process and the order on each of the respondents. 

3. Mr Kadir asked each of the applicants to send a letter to the home addresses of each of the respondents whom they employed advising them of the originating application and the orders made by this Court.  Each of the applicants posted the letter to their respective employees at their home address.  He received and annexed to his affidavit written confirmation that the applicants had posted a copy of the letter to each respondent they employed.  None of the employees responded to the correspondence seeking a further copy of the originating application or orders. 

4. That original letter which was sent to each employee says:

   We write to advise that on 27 January 2010, the Federal Court of Australia granted an interlocutory injunction restraining certain employees (including you) from continuing to take unprotected and unlawful industrial action on the Pluto LNG Project.

   The interlocutory injunction will remain in force until 5.00 pm on 5 February 2010.

   On or about Thursday, 28 January 2010, personal service of the following documents was effected on you in your accommodation on site:

   ·Federal Court Application for Interlocutory Injunction; and

   ·Federal Court Order of Justice McKerracher granting the Interlocutory Injunction (Order).

   If you have not received copies of these documents, please contact [insert person] as soon as possible.

   Please be aware that if you:

   ·refuse or neglect to do any act within the time specified in the Order for the doing of the act; or

   ·disobey the Order by doing an act which the order requires you to abstain from doing,

   you will be liable to imprisonment, sequestration of property or other punishment.

   Any other person who knows of the Order and does anything which helps or permits you to breach the terms of the Order will be similarly punished. 

   Yours faithfully
   …

5. Mr Lee and Mr Burnby in their affidavits, swore that they served personally as many of the respondents as they were able to find at home and for those they could not find at home, they left the originating process at the address of each of the respondents in a variety of ways. 

6. The position as to whether the respondents actually received the originating process is not clear but it must be said that at the commencement of this proceeding a great deal of publicity occurred as disclosed on affidavit evidence.  That publicity taken together with the personal letters would explain why there is no evidence that any respondent, especially any conditional respondent, did not become aware that he or she was a party to the proceeding in the manner described in the letter forwarded by the applicants to all respondents at or about the date of the various letters.

7. Without the letter, it must be said that simply knowing of the proceeding does not mean that one knows that one is a party to the proceeding, let alone the precise cause of action being pursued.  But the letter does at least deal with the important issue of knowledge of those matters.

8. Importantly given that the conditional respondents each instructed the solicitors concerned to enter conditional appearances, it must be inferred that the originating process came to their notice.   

9. In Howship Holdings Pty Ltd v Leslie [No 2] (1996) 41 NSWLR 542 (at 544) Young J said observed:

   … personal service merely means that the document in question must come to the notice of the person for whom it is intended. The means by which that person obtains the document are usually immaterial. This is clear in cases that have been considered good law over the centuries, including Hope v Hope (1854) 4 De GM & G 328 at 341-345; 43 ER 534 at 539-540; R v Heron; Ex parte Mulder (1884) 10 VLR 314 at 315; Pino v Prosser [1967] VR 835 at 838. Some of those cases were complicated by the requirement in the former statutes that a person serving initiating process had to
   endorse the initiating process, but the principle is clear from them. 

   If this were not so, one would get the absurd situation referred to by McInerney J in Pino v Prosser (at 837), that the conclusion would be one which is:

   "... remarkable to the point of seeming absurdity, in that the defendant who, on his own affidavit admits that he received the writ ... should be held not to have been served."

10. Recently in Metacorp Pty Ltd v Andeco Construction Group Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 199 Vickery J said (footnotes omitted):

    84       As was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor in Hope v Hope:

    The object of all service is of course only to give notice to the party to whom it is made, so that he may be made aware of and may be able to resist that which is sought against him; and when that has been substantially done, so that the court may feel perfectly confident that service has reached him, everything has been done as required.

    85       To like effect were the observations of Holroyd J in Rudd v John Griffiths Cycle Co Ltd where his Honour, in the course of delivering a dissenting judgment of the Full Court, after referring to the common law history of personal service, went on to say:

    Before the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, 15 and 16 Vict., c. 76, came into operation the Courts of England were in general very strict in their interpretation of what constituted personal service, but still on several occasions they declined to set aside the service where the copy of the writ had been delivered at the party’s residence to a servant or relative of his and from the facts the Judge thought it fair to infer that it came into his hands or to his knowledge so that he did or could, if he pleased, become acquainted with its contents.

    86       These passages were cited with approval by McInerney J inPino v Prosser who observed that it would be:

    ... remarkable to the point of seeming absurdity, in that the defendant who, on his own affidavit admits that he received the writ ... should be held not to have been served.

    87       The general principle enunciated in Hope v Hope and Rudd v John Griffiths Cycle Co Ltd, was applied by McInerney J inPino v Prosser to the following circumstances: the relevant document, a copy writ, although left with the defendant’s wife, who was a person not capable of accepting personal service on behalf of her husband, came into the possession of the defendant on the same day when, later that night after returning from work, the defendant was handed the copy of the writ by his wife. Receipt by this means was held by the Court to be sufficient to constitute good personal service.

11. As indicated at the outset, there is no doubt that conventional personal service has not been achieved for all of the conditional respondents. Moreover the applicants appear not to be able to say which respondent was ‘served’ in which manner, if at all. 

12. Nevertheless it must be inferred that all of the conditional respondents are well aware that he or she is a party to the proceeding having instructed solicitors and counsel.  This is far from a situation of ‘the bailiff’ appearing on the door step for the first time to effect execution of a judgment or order.  To the extent it is relevant, which may be minimal, the proceedings are not far advanced at all.  No defences have been filed for example. 

13. Although it is possible that there may be some respondents who were unaware of the very substantial publicity surrounding the commencement of this litigation and the real possibility that as an employee, he or she was a party to it, there is no evidence that any of the conditional respondents were in that position. 

14. The point that no substituted service order was sought at the outset is both correct and reasonable. However given the urgency of the situation in this unusual litigation, especially the very substantial sums at risk on a daily basis, it is understandable with hindsight that not every difficulty could be foreseen.  There were concentrated service attempts which were reasonable in the circumstances.  The personal letter to all employees of the applicants was another means of bringing the proceedings to their attention.  When the difficulties became known, an application for substituted service was pursued.

15. For others not represented, the problem has not yet arisen but could reasonably be cured with an order under r 10 if that were appropriate which does not fall for consideration at present. 

16. In my view the declarations sought should not be made as it is clear that all of the conditional respondents have the necessary notice of the originating process.  Although they have not all been personally served in the conventional sense under the rules, the cases show that the purpose of the rules as to service has been achieved.

    CORRECTIONAL ORDERS

17. As I am not convinced that any declaration should be made, it is strictly unnecessary to deal with the correctional order issue, however as I raised the topic at least in part, myself, I would say that if I am wrong on the service point, I would grant relief in the circumstances.

18. The applicants argue that although personal service was not effected in each case, in the alternative, that it is clear from the affidavits of Mr Lee, the Bailiff of the Karratha Police Station and Mr Burnby, the Bailiff of the Dampier Police Station that it was impractical to effect personal service of the originating application on at least some of the respondents but that steps were taken to bring the documents to their notice. 

19. In those circumstances it is said that the jurisdiction of the Court under O 7 r 10 of the rules is enlivened and the Court should order that the originating application was served on each of the conditional respondents.

20. The respondents contend that at this stage of the proceedings it is not appropriate for the Court ex post facto to correct defects in the service of the originating process on the respondents by making an order as the applicants seek pursuant to O 7 r 10 FCR as:

    (a)there is no motion before the Court from the applicants seeking relief under O 7 r 10; and

    (b)the evidence before the Court is not sufficient to show:

    (i)        why service of the originating process on the respondents was ‘impractical’; or

    (ii)what steps were taken by the applicants to effect service of the originating process on the respondents such that the Court could be satisfied that each respondent had sufficient knowledge of the contents of the originating process to be in a position to respond to it.

21. In the course of the hearing, I raised with counsel for the respondents the question of whether relief should be granted under O 1 r 8 of the rules which provides as follows:

    8        Relief from rules

    The Court may dispense with compliance with any of the requirements of the Rules, either before or after the occasion for compliance arises.

22. Emmett J in Sogelease Australia Ltd v Griffin (2003) 128 FCR 399 indicated that such relief in his view would be appropriate.

23. In the circumstances of these motions, the conditional respondents contend that excusing the non-service pursuant to O 1 r 8 FCR would not be appropriate.  In support of that submission they reiterate the argument that service of the originating process is a jurisdictional fact, a requirement which needs to be met before the Court can exercise the jurisdiction with respect to the respondents. 

24. As to dispensing with the requirement in the Rules (and see also Lazar v Taito (Aust) Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 395), it was submitted that the circumstances in which the Court will exercise the discretion to dispense with the requirement for personal service will be limited, to use the expression of McGregor J in Lazar (at 403 and at 414 per Neaves J). In that case, a Full Court of this Court upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to dispense with personal service of the court process in the circumstances of the case. That was, however, on the basis that the court was satisfied that the particular respondent had notice of the proceedings. Neaves J (with whom relevantly Fox J and McGregor JJ agreed) said in relation to O 1 r 8 FCR (at 414):

    In my opinion O 1, r 8 confers a very wide discretion on the court to dispense with personal service where the court considers it appropriate to do so. The power which it confers is not limited by the express requirement for personal service in O 40, r 8 though it may be accepted that in the case of contempt proceedings as, perhaps, in other cases there will be limited circumstances in which the discretion conferred by the rule should be exercised. I am satisfied that the particular circumstances of this case were such that an exercise of the discretion to dispense with personal service was justified. The appellant's submissions on this aspect of the matter are rejected.

25. In my respectful view those observations are not only binding but make good sense.  The ‘very wide discretion’ is one which in an appropriate case may be exercised ex post facto if the interests of justice so require.  No motion for contempt is before the court which may raise different considerations.  The fact that the court may in effect regularize the initial service so that the proceedings of which the conditional respondents must be taken to have notice may move forward does not mean that on a hypothetical contempt motion against any respondent, that service or knowledge of a restraining order would be as readily inferred.  That, however is entirely hypothetical at present.

26. Orders under either O 7 or O 1 are not necessary, but were they necessary, in my view they could be properly made in the circumstances of this case.

    INFERENCE AS TO KNOWLEDGE

27. The conditional respondents contend that it is not open to the Court to draw any inference as to their knowledge of the proceeding.  They contend that the conditional appearance was a necessary procedural step filed to enable the respondents to bring the significant defects in the service of the originating process in the proceeding to the attention of the Court (Robinson v Kuwait Liaison Office (1997) 145 ALR 68 at 75).

28. Two things may be said about Robinson v Kuwait.  First, as the extract below reveals, it involved specialised legislation specific to that case.  Secondly, to the extent that it made the point that filing a conditional appearance does not constitute a submission to jurisdiction, it is undoubtedly correct.  But as will be seen, that is not the argument raised for the applicants in this motion.  In Robinson v Kuwait Moore J said:

    The question that arises in these proceedings is whether the Kuwait Liaison Office has entered an appearance of the type that enlivens the provisions of s 26. A person may appear in a court by announcing an appearance or, if the Rules of the Court so provide, by filing a notice of appearance. The appearance may be unconditional in which case it generally amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of the court and a waiver of any irregularity such as one concerning the manner of service: see Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529 at 539, 11 ALR 227 per Gibbs J. A conditional appearance constitutes an appearance for the purposes of the litigation, subject to a right to apply to set aside the originating process: see Trade Practices Commission v The Gillette (No. 1) (1993) 45 FCR 366 at 369-70, 118 ALR 280; Westpac Banking Corporation v P&O Containers Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 90 at 93-4; for reasons relating to service or other reasons: see Cell Tech Communications Pty Ltd v Nokia Mobile Phones (UK) Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 365 at 370; 136 ALR 733.

    If the court does not have rules regulating the manner of appearing, then issues will arise about the consequences of a party appearing before articulating an objection to jurisdiction. In Lindgran v Lindgran [1956] VLR 215, Smith J concluded that a party had not waived an objection to jurisdiction arising from defective service of the originating process by consenting to an adjournment and, on a later occasion, by appearing through counsel who announced an appearance before raising an objection to jurisdiction. His Honour said at 220 that to waive objection to jurisdiction:

    [T]here must at least be words or conduct of such a nature that an inference can properly be drawn therefrom that the party alleged to have waived the objection does not intend to rely upon it: cf Ray v the Justices of Melbourne (1891) 17 VLR 186; Brokenshire v Bacon (1895) 1 VLR 273; Re the Melbourne Democratic Club (1901) 27 VLR 88; Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305 at 326; see also Hampden v Wallis (1884) 26 Ch D 746; Rein v Stein (1892) 66 LT 469, per Cave J at 471-2.

    The prosecution of an application to set aside orders on grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make them because there had been ineffective service of the originating process, while raising grounds touching the merits, does not constitute a waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction: see Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310 at 335-36; see also National Commercial Bank v Wimborne (1979) 11 NSWLR 156 at 176-183. A recent example of the application of these principles is found in Williams v The Society of Lloyds [1994] 1 VR 274 in which McDonald J concluded that a request for particulars of a claim did not constitute a waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction.

    Another recent example is found in Bannerton Holdings Pty Ltd v Sydbank Soenderjylland AS (unreported, 9 February 1996, Federal Court of Australia, Nicholson J). The respondent sought orders setting aside an application and service of originating process on it in Denmark and related orders under O 9, r 7. The respondent also sought a stay of the proceedings on the basis that the Federal Court was an inappropriate forum for the litigation of the claim. To the extent that the respondent was challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the applicant argued that the respondent had accepted the court’s jurisdiction by seeking an order staying the proceedings. Nicholson J discussed the relevant principles in the following passages:

    The case for the applicant also relies upon Rein v Stein (1892) 66 LT 469 at 471 where it was said by Cave J (with Williams J agreeing) that in order to establish a waiver of a right to object to jurisdiction it must be shown that the party alleged to have waived the objection has taken some step which is only necessary or only useful if the objection has been actually waived or if the objection has never been entertained at all. This statement was followed in Williams v The Society of Lloyds [1994] 1 VR 274 at 293 and National Commercial Bank v Wimborne (1979) 11 NSWLR 156.

    The dicta in Rein was applied in Williams & Glyn’s Bank Plc v Astro Dinamico Compania Naviera SA [1984] 1 WLR 438 at 444. It is Williams, supra, upon which the case for the respondent relies. It was there held that a summons in an English action to enforce guarantees given by two Greek companies in which they had joined a stay application together with an application to set aside the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction did not have the consequence that they had waived their objection to jurisdiction and was in no way inconsistent with maintaining that objection ...

    ... Williams & Glyn’s Bank, supra, is the relevant authority. It is a decision of the House of Lords and so is to be preferred as higher authority in any event if the ratio decidendi of Henry, supra, is properly to be understood as dealing with the same essential point. The reasoning in Williams & Glyn’s Bank (see particularly the speech of Lord Fraser of Tullybelton at 443-4) accords with what was said by Caves J in Rein v Stein, supra, and by Denning LJ in Re Dulles’ Settlement, supra. It also accords with the common sense notion that an appearance made under protest as to jurisdiction is inconsistent with the concept of voluntary submission or waiver of the right to object: cf Finnish Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Protective National Insurance Co [1990] 1 QB 1078. The law is so understood in Dicey and Morris on The Conflict of Laws 12th ed, 1993, vol 1 pp 311-12. Nothing said by the High Court in Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310 supports a contrary conclusion.

    Consequently, the applicant’s argument that the respondent has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction cannot succeed. That resolution of law is consistent with the basis upon which the respondent appeared, namely by way of continuing objection to jurisdiction even when contending for the stay application.

    In my opinion, the reference in s 26 to a foreign State “enter(ing) an appearance in a proceeding” is a reference to circumstances where the foreign State conducts itself in a way that indicates it does not challenge the jurisdiction of the court based on ineffective service. So much is apparent from the words that follow, namely “without making an objection in relation to the service of the initiating process”. Submission to jurisdiction more generally is dealt with by s 10 of the Immunities Act. Such an indication may be manifest by the unqualified announcement of an appearance on the foreign State’s behalf at a hearing or the filing of an unconditional notice of appearance. It would not be manifest by the filing of a conditional appearance at least of the type contemplated by rules such as O 9 r 6 of the Federal Court of Australia Rules of the Rules of this Court. The filing of such a conditional appearance would preserve the right of the foreign State to seek a declaration under O 9 r 7(1)(a) that, having regard to s 25 of the Immunities Act, the originating process had not been duly served.

    In the present case, the filing of the “employer’s appearance” on behalf of the Kuwait Liaison Office with the Australian Industrial Registry did not, in my opinion, constitute the entering of an appearance for the purposes of s 26. First, the written direction to file it made clear that it would not deny the filing party the right to make submissions about jurisdiction which, in my opinion, would include want of jurisdiction arising from defective service of process to which ss 23, 24 and 25 of the Immunities Act applies. It was in that context that the appearance was filed. Secondly, the solicitors acting for the Kuwait Liaison office made plain, albeit several weeks later, that their client was not submitting to the Commission’s or the court’s jurisdiction. Taken together, it is evidence, in my opinion, that the Kuwait Liaison Office was not manifesting an intention of the type upon which s 26 intended to operate, that is submitting to jurisdiction notwithstanding any defect in the service of originating process. …

1. The key analysis in Robinson v Kuwait was as to the question of whether the pursuit of an application to set aside orders on grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make them because there had been ineffective service of the originating process, meant there had been a submission to jurisdiction.  It was held, consistently with Laurie v Carroll at 335-336; see also National Commercial Bank v Wimborne (1979) 11 NSWLR 156 at 176-183 that it did not constitute a waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction.

2. Nothing done by the conditional respondents has constituted a waiver of  their right to contend that there has been no valid service of the originating process so as to enliven the jurisdiction of the Court.  Nor has it constituted a submission to jurisdiction. 

3. Consistently with the authorities discussed at [30]-[31], the only argument advanced for the applicants is that if the purpose of the rules as to service is to ensure that notice of the proceedings is given to a respondent, then in instances where it is clear that the giving of notice (even before an unconditional appearance is filed) has been achieved, then as the purpose of service is attained, it is inappropriate to make a declaration that personal service has not been effected.   This argument succeeded.  It is not the argument in Robinson (which failed), that there had been a submission to jurisdiction precluding any argument as to service being raised.

   CONCLUSION

4. For the forgoing reasons I decline to make the declarations sought and the motions seeking the declarations will be dismissed.   I will hear counsel as to any consequential orders and the making of further directions.

I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice McKerracher.

Associate: 

Dated:       27 July 2010

SCHEDULE A AS AMENDED

Decmil Australia Pty Ltd
1	CALABRO Braeden
2	PEARCE Symeon
3	LEE Samuel
4	JOHANSSON Michael
5	CONNOR John
6	ROBERTS Mitch
7	Mccarty Grant
8	GRIGARIUS Travis
9	WEBB John
10	KENDALL Simon
11	SCAHILL Adam
12	WATKINS Lee
13	GILMOUR Sam
14	HALES Rory
15	BRENTON Michael
16	HENAWAY Caleb
17	CARMAN Steve
18	HOSKING Peter
19	DAY Paul
20	PEEK Carl
21	KOHLER Bradley
22	SMITH Shannon
23	CLEMENTS Andrew
AGC Industries Pty Ltd
24	AINSWORTH Michael
25	ALWAYS Peter
26	ARKEVELD Dirk
27	BAKBAK Bekir
28	BARCHAM Stephen
29	BARKER Georffrey
30	BARTON Richard
31	BARWISE Richard
32	BEILKEN Grant
33	BERMINGHAM Simon
34	BENKIRANE Abdellilah
35	BIGLIN Scott
36	BLACKBOURNE Eden
37	BLOOR Graeme
38	BODY Ross
39	BOGOEVSKI Tom
40	BOWERS Gerard
41	BRIAGAS Genaro
42	BRITCHER Colin
43	BROWN John
44	BROWN Mark
45	BROWN Matthew
46	BROWN Thomas
47	BROWNE Keith
48	BRUCE Robert
49	BUNNER Colin
50	BUNYAN Paul
51	BURGER David
52	BURGESS Derek
53	BURNS James
54	BYERS Shannon
55	CALLAGHAN Stephen
56	CAMPBELL Bevan
57	CAMPION John
58	CARANDANG Adrian
59	CARDOSO Joaquim
60	CARR William
61	CASAS Ramon
62	CASSIDY Chris
63	CATTLE Leslie
64	CHARDON Anthony
65	CHO Han Jeong
66	CHO Myoung Ho
67	CLAY Luke
68	CLAYBURN Richard
69	CLIFTON Dane
70	COLEMAN Allen
71	COLEY Keith
72	COMIA Irineo
73	COOK Geoffrey
74	COSMOS Maria
75	CREAM Kevin
76	CREASEY Grant
77	DANIELL Jared
78	DAVIS Faisal
79	DELLAGOSTINO Ray
80	DOLAR Angel
81	DOWDLE Greg
82	DOWNES Joshua
83	DUDA Brendon
84	ELLIOT Trevor
85	ELLIS Brendon
86	ELLIS Gavin
87	FABER Andrew
88	FINLAYSON Dean
89	FOLEY David
90	FRANCIS Steven
91	FRASER David
92	GARVIE Sean
93	GAZEY Liam
94	GEOGHEGAN Aaron
95	GIBBONS Jean
96	GIBBS Wayne
97	GODDEN Toby
98	GREENLAND Rewi
99	GREHAN Paul
100	HALLAM Neil
101	HANN Troy
102	HANSFORD Gordon
103	HARDINGHAM Victor
104	HARRIS Aiden
105	HARRIS Jack
106	HARRIS Paul
107	HEBBARD Quinton
108	HILL Rodney
109	HILLIER Dion
110	HOPA Boyd
111	HOWELL Dylan
112	HOY Dion
113	HUBBERT Zeke
114	JACK John
115	JAENSCH Corey
116	JAHN Brad
117	JEFFERIES Brad
118	JENKINS Mark
119	JONES Steven
120	JOSEPHS Anthony
121	JOVANOVIC George
122	KAMPMAN Michael
123	KERMODE William
124	KHOO Meow-Ling
125	KIM Hyong Joo
126	KIM Jae Uk
127	KIM Keumyul
128	KIM Tae Shir
129	KNOWLER Steven
130	KOLAR Slavko
131	KYUNG Kyuyel
132	LEDGER Todd
133	LEE Anthony
134	LEE Chongil
135	LEE Hyungkil
136	LEE Kyuyil
137	LOVE Ray
138	LUCKMAN Graham
139	LYNCH Brian
140	MACFARLAN Chris
141	MACKENZIE Alex
142	MAIN Craig
143	MAMUDI Mudzait
144	MARQUES Augusto
145	MARSDEN Warren
146	MARSHALL Roy
147	MARTIN Kean
148	MATIC Mirko
149	MATTHEWS Michael
150	MAXWELL Matthew
151	McBRIDE Neil
152	McCONNELL Terry
153	McDERMOTT Dermott
154	MCLEAN Graham
155	McMILLAN Ian
156	MITCHELL-NGAWAKA Bruno
157	MOON Lee
158	MOREIRA Manuel
159	MORTI Rosita
160	MULLIGAN Barrie
161	NA Myoung Ho
162	PAEHUA Charles
163	PAKU Albert
164	PALLIER Matthew
165	PALLIER Stephen
166	PAMVOUXOGOLOU Benjamin
167	PELOSI Steven
168	PEPPER Shane
169	PES James
170	PES Leslie
171	PIVA Bernard
172	POTTS Paul
173	POUYE Paul
174	PRATLEY Steven
175	PUKE Taare
176	QUINTO Arturo
177	RAMADANI Berat
178	RAO Keith
179	RAVEN Grant
180	RICHARDSON Andrew
181	RIGLEY Peter
182	ROBERTS Ricky
183	ROBINSON Brian
184	ROSALES Dennis
185	SABINE Tom
186	SARNADSKY Kenneth
187	SATUROS Perlito
188	SCHULTZ Drew
189	SEONG Ki Young
190	SEONG Lak
191	SEWELL John
192	SHAVE Anthony
193	SKIPINA Aleksandar
194	SKIPINA Vladmir
195	SMITH Jeff
196	SMITH Ryan
197	SOLOMON Trevor
198	SONG Dong Jin
199	SONG Kichul
200	SOUN Sareun
201	STIVALETTA Joey
202	STOJOSKI Zoran
203	SUYAT Bienvenido
204	SYGUWA Richard
205	TANNER Bradley
206	TAYLOR Raeminn
207	TENISELI Leo
208	THOMAS Gary
209	THOMPSON Tui
210	THOMSON Matthew
211	TURNER Paul
212	TURNER Anthony
213	VALENTINO Anthony
214	VAN TRAN Khanh
215	VENTURA Fabio
216	VOICAN Jacob
217	VOICAN Marian
218	WALKER Trevor
219	WALLACE Joe
220	WALSH Bruce
221	WARD Ches
222	WEBB Luke
223	WESTON Steve
224	WILLIAMS Neil
225	WILSON Peter
226	WOJTCZAK Natasha
227	YARRAN Ray
228	YATES Darrell
229	YEE Ah Meng (Sunny)
230	YOUNG Jamie
231	YOUNG Suk Park (Yong?)
232	ZABEL Ernest
Freo Group Limited
233	BRAND Gregory
234	BROWN Keith
235	CASEY Michael
236	CHAPPEL Harold
237	CLINCH Fred
238	COUTTS Andrew
239	DEVINE Robert
240	FARIU Terry
241	FULLERTON Paul
242	GANTER Jake
243	GATHERCOLE SMITH Carl
244	HENRY Anthony
245	HOPPER Catherine
246	JOHNS Steven
247	KEDDELL, Mason
248	LUBRIG Alfred
249	MATHISON Warwick
250	MILES Blake
251	MITCHELL Euan
252	MORGAN Sherman
253	NGATAMARIKI Tangi
254	NOYES Paul
255	PASSMORE Brett
256	PAYNE Graham
257	PUERTA David
258	SARDELIC Antony
259	SIMS Luke
260	SMITH Malcolm
261	STEVENSON, Carl
262	STEPHENSON, Keith
263	STUBING Bradley
264	UPOKO Tuaere
265	VAUGHAN Michelle
Modern Access Services
266	ANDERSON Joshua
267	AUGUST Anthony
268	BARBER Russell
269	BIDDISCOMBE John
270	BLYTHIN Kevin
271	BRINKLEY Kristian
272	BROOKSBY John
273	BURKHARDT Ron
274	CAPOLICCHIO Brett
275	CAVALLARO Domenico
276	COOPER Stephen
277	COOPER Tasman
278	CORNISH Mark
279	DALY Jarrod
280	DODD Adrian
281	EVANS Simon
282	FINN Beryl
283	FREEMAN Steven
284	GLENTWORTH Brooke
285	GODREI Pradeep
286	GOODSON Matthew
287	GREEN Kori
288	HARTLEY Mark
289	HAYES Karim
290
291	HOOTON Nathan
292	HOWARD Ben
293	HUGILL Christopher
294	JURAS Frank
295	KINO Aaron
296	LEE Damien
297	MAM Nara
298	MAM Narak
299	MARSHALL Shane
300
301	MCNAMARA David
302	MCNULTY Marin
303	MINIFIE Terry
304	MORRISON Jon
305	MURRAY Mike
306	NAMOK Mark
307	NUNES Andrew
308	OSBORN Christopher
309	PARKER Troy
310	PEACOCK Michael
311	PETERSON Trevor
312	PHILLIPS Richard
313	PHILLIPS-MITCHELL Gavin
314	PITT Stanley
315	RATIMA Khimbo
316	REUBEN Marvin
317	REVILL Brent
318	ROBERTS James
319	SANT Troy
320	SARSON Jason
321	SMITH Steve
322	SMITH Shayne
323	SUTER Julian
324	THOMPSON Brian
325	TITO David
326	VAN ROOYEN Kristy
327	WARAHI Damian
328	WELLS Brayden
329	WILLIAMS Adam
330	WILLING Mark
331	WRATHALL Shannon
332	YATES Scott
333	YU Lida
Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd
334	AINSWORTH Shaun
335	AUSTIN Grant
336	AXTON Shannen
337	BALL David
338	BATZLOFF Mark
339	BELLESINI Katie
340	BICKLER Adrian
341	BOLTON Lyall
342	CLIFFORD Tully
343	COHEN Andrew
344	COLEMAN Ronald
345	CRAVEN Matthew
346	DICKINSON Pauline
347	DIXON Shayne
348	DUNNE Maria
349	DRUMMOND Matthew
350	EDDINGTON Spencer
351	EMMOTT Rebecca
352	FITZGERALD Warren
353	FLETT Steve
354	FURLONG Katrina
355	GRAY Matthew
356	GRAY Richard
357	GREENWAY Darryl
358	HARDWICK James
359	HARRISON Brian
360	HINES Gregory
361	HOPKINS Gareth
362	HOW Adrian
363	LAMBERT Harold
364	LANDGREN Mick
365	LYE Warwick
366	McDONALD Ronald
367	McVINISH, Rosalee
368	MITCHELL Liam
369	NELSON Steven
370	OREILLY Richard
371	OTT Jonathan
372	REED Michael
373	RETTKE Robert
374	RICHARDSON Matthew
375	ROFF Andrew
376	ROGERS Malcolm
377	ROSS Adam
378	ROWE Greig
379	ROWE Raymond
380	SCHWARZ Peter
381	SEYMOUR Ashley
382	TAYLOR Nathan
383	TAYLOR John
384	THOMSON Gary
385	WALKER Ken
386	WAUGH Duncan
387	WELLS Brian
388	ZELINSKI Sonya
Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd
389	ABBOTT Ben
390	ALCIBAR Philip
391	ALEXANDER Raymond
392	ALI Paul
393	ALLSOP Simon
394	ANDERSON Steven
395	ANDERSON Stephen
396	ARMSTRONG Paul
397	ATKINS Daniel
398	ATKINSON Khan
399	BACHE Guy
400	BAKER Chris
401	Balazic Robert
402	BALLINGER Paul
403	BAMBERRY Russell
404	BARRON Dale
405	BARRY Peter
406	BATE Gordon
407	BELL Robert
408	BERRIDGE Helen
409	BOXALL Darren
410	BOZTEPE Serkan
411	BRODIE Peter
412	BRUEN Gerard (Ged)
413	BURCH Michelle
414	BURGETT James
415	BURTON Daniel
416
417	BUTLER John
418	BUTTACAVOLI Anthony
419	CABRILOVSKI George
420	CALBALA Deborah
421	CALCOTT David
422	CALLANAN Barry
423	CANAL Jose
424	CARRIES Louis
425	CARRUTHERS John
426	CARTER Chad
427	CARY Eric
428	CERVINI Marc
429	CHAPMAN Scott
430	CLAPHAM Wade
431	CLARKE Tony
432	CLAY Adam
433	COLEMAN Matthew
434	COLLARD Kelvin
435	COLLINS Wayne
436	COLLINS David
437	COOK Ben
438	COULTER Jesse
439	CRAWFORD Robert (Dave)
440
441	CROSS Sidney
442	CUMMING Kenneth
443
444	CURTIS Robert
445	DACOMBE John
446	DASTOL Ronald
447	DAVIES Jason
448	DAVIS Greg
449	DAW Robert
450	DAW Stephen
451	DAWES Shane
452	DAY Matthew
453	DEMAIO Sam
454	DERRICK Robert
455	DEVINE Scott
456	DOWLING Graham
457	DOWSETT Keith
458	DRACA Bogoljub (Bob)
459	DUNCAN Anthony
460	DUNN Deborah
461	DWYER Regan
462	ECCLES Lee
463	ELDERIDGE Ben
464	ELLIOTT Francis
465	ELPEZ Marijan
466	EMMANUEL Harry
467	EMMERSON Russell
468	EMSLIE John
469	ERCEG James
470	EVANS Zach
471	FARRUGIA Dennis
472	FERGUSON Margaret
473	FERGUSON Michael
474	FIELD Michael
475	FITZROY Corey
476	FLAHAVIN Joseph
477	FLETCHER Ryan
478	FORBES Adrian
479	FORREST Robert
480	FOWLES Tony
481	FRADL Robert
482	GARTON Steven
483	GILLESPIE Don
484	GIVNEY Shane
485	GLASS Tyson
486	GLASS Victor
487	GLYNN Martin
488	GODFREY Andrew
489	GOLUB Aleksander
490	GOODALL Adrian
491	GRILLS Dean
492	GRIVINS Justin
493	HAINES Danny
494	HARRIS Robert
495	HARRIS Patricia
496	HAYES Clint
497	HEBBARD Leith
498	HEBDEN Garth
499	HIKU Frank
500	HODDY Graeme
501	HOLLOWAY Rodney
502	HOLT Robert
503	HOOYBERG Eric
504	HOPPE Dennis
505	HOWARD Morgan
506	HUGHES Murray
507	HULL Kevin
508	ISAIA Ben
509	JANNEKER Clinton
510	JARRETT Grant
511	JONES Peter
512	JONES Rodney
513	JONES Richard
514	JONES Raymond
515
516	KAAKA Rima
517	KATSCHNER Lothar
518	KEEGAN Daniel
519	KEILY Shaun
520	KELLY Gavin
521	KELLY Shane
522	KELLY Mick
523	Kemp Michael
524	KING Joel
525	KING Mark
526	KORVER Glenn
527	KOUKA Boydie
528	KRAKOUER James
529	LAING Derek
530	LAMB Darren
531	LARSEN Leonard
532	LAWRENCE John
533	LAWRIE Lachlan
534	LEANING Jason
535	LEO Graham
536	LEONARD Troy
537	LEWIS Nerralie
538	LI Andrew
539	LIEBKE Steven
540	LIVINGSTON Anthony
541	LLOYD Martin
542	LORD Michael
543	LORTAN Gregory (Greg)
544	LOTZ Terrence
545	LOWE Darren
546	LUELING Freddi
547	LYONS Brock
548	MANN James
549	MATTHEWS Terry
550	MCCLUTCHIE Eugene
551	MCDONALD Malcolm
552	MCDONALD Cathy (Cate)
553	MCFARLANE Craig
554	MCGUIRE Alastair
555	MCLAREN Anne
556	MCLAREN Mark
557	MCMILLAN Brett
558	MELLOR Trevor
559	MILNE Andrew
560	MINNER Robert
561	MLEZIVA Sacha
562	MOONEY Matthew
563	MORRIS Patrick
564	MORTIMER Andrew
565	MURPHY Phillip
566	NAIDOO Manivasagan
567	NANKIVELL Mark
568	NELIS Joseph
569	NGAWHIKA Shane
570	NICHOLLS Andrew
571	NOCK Alan
572	NOVOSELL Erwin
573	O'MALLEY David
574	ORMEROD Jacqueline
575	OTTAWAY Kate
576	PAJONK Michael
577	PALEVNO Dennis
578	PATU Tuakaua
579	PATYI Richard
580	PAVLIK Robert
581	PAYNE Mark
582	PEDLER Robert
583	PETERSEN Malcolm
584	POOLE Michael
585	PRIDDETH Jake
586	PUATA Troy
587	PUATA Aaron
588	PURCEL Michael
589	QUALTROUGH Scott
590	QUINLESS Fred
591
592	RANN Dylan
593	RAYMAN Carl
594	REGAN Les
595	REID Jethro
596	RIDDELL Jeffrey
597	RITCHIE Jason
598	RIVAS Anthony
599	ROBERTS  Douglas
600	ROBERTSON James (Jim)
601	ROSANES Renie
602	ROSS Yancy-lee
603	RUDOLF Renee
604	SANDERS Michael
605	SAXBY Zallman
606	SCALES Simon
607	SCANTLEBURY Robin
608	SCHAECHE Eric
609	SCHOONER Raimona (Joe)
610	SCULLION Joseph
611	SCULLION Neil
612	SEMMENS Jai
613	SHAND Derick
614	SHELLY Ben
615	SIMPSON Tahi
616	SLOMAN Janet
617	SMITH Barry
618	SMITH Peter
619	SMITH Bruce
620	SPARKE Cassie
621	SPRAGUE Matthew
622	STARCEVIC Martin
623	STRANG Matthew
624	SWINDLEHURST Kevin
625	TAHI TAHI Antonio
626	TAMATEA Patrick
627	TANGIORA Clinton
628	TANNER Buwyn
629	TASKER Patricia
630	TE MIHA Deon
631	THEXTON Gary
632	TICEHURST Michael
633	TIMMERMANS James
634	TOAKLEY Matthew
635	TOMS Robin
636	TYSON Shane
637	VAAI Lasalosi
638	VAN EETEN Daniel
639	VARIAN Shane
640	VELLA Jesse
641	VOZAREVIC Bruno
642	WATSON Rebecka
643	WEARNE Adam
644	WEBB Paul
645	WEIR Kristian
646	WETERE Louis
647	WHELPDALE Eddie
648	WHITE Ramon
649	WHITE Brett
650	WILKINSON Norman
651	WILLIAMS Keetha
652	WILLSHIRE Andrew (Andy)
653	WILSON Troy
654	WINTLE Steven
655	WOODLAND Jamie
656	WOOLLASTON Simon
657	WRIGHT Colin
658	YEONG Kam
RCR Positron Pty Ltd
659	ABELHA D.     E.
660	BISKUP M.     E.
661	DAVEY S.      E.
662	EGGERS S.     TA.
663	EVERITT J.       E.
664	GARDENER R. LE
665	GOUGE J.     LE.
666	GUYATT D.    LE.
667	HARRISON R.     E.
668	HEARD D.       E.
669	HEYWOOD S. LE.
670	HOLMES P.    E.
671	HOWARD T
672	JORDAN A.     TA.
673	KENNEDY W. BM
674	KIMPTON T.    E.
675	KIRKPATRICK K.TF
676	LEACH A.    TA.
677	LETTE B.        E.
678	MCCARTNEY N. TA
679	MEARDI A.     TA.
680	MESSAGE S.  TA
681	MITCHELL L.     E.
682	MULVEY P.      E.
683	PERAK A.     TA.
684	PHILLIPS D.     E.
685	PRIESTLY M.    TA.
686	SHEASBY R.  TA.
687	SMITH B.       E.
688	SPANGEN S.    E.
689	WATTS S.       E.
690	WEBB B.       E.
691	WILKS B.       E.
PCH Group Ltd
692	ASIATA Moses
693	ATKINS Te
694	BISHOP Matthew
695	BLAKE Sean
696	BRYAN Jason
697	BURNS Darryl
698	COLLINS Craig
699	COOMBES Michael
700	COOPER Layton
701	COOPER Aaron
702	DAVID Julian
703	DEVINE Cash
704	DIOSAN Radu
705	DROLLET Kayne
706	DUNN Nigel
707	EMERY Manny
708	FIAMANYA Dzifa
709	FINCARYK Oscar
710	FORBES Anthony
711	GABRIEL Iarere (Eddie)
712	GARNER Stephen
713	GATHERCOLE-SMITH Justin
714	GIBBS Jacob
715	GLASS Steven
716	HAPE Kahu
717	HARTLEY Dean
718	HAYES Craig
719	HINAKI Randal
720	HOWE Duane
721	IEREMIA Sipili
722	IND Matthew
723	JAYME Steven
724	JENSEN Ross
725	KAISER Michael
726	KEARNS Clinton
727	KELLY Stuart
728	KIRTLEY Jai
729	KLAPKO Andrew
730	KOMENE Robert
731	KOUKA Bennett
732	LANDMETER Harry
733	LODGE Dewayne
734	LULHAM Marc
735	MAEA John
736	MANU Harley
737	MANU Jeremia
738	MANU John
739	MANUEL Jardine
740	MASON Terence
741	MATENGA Huki
742	MCCRORY Bernard
743	McCRORY Jason
744	MEDLAND Dean
745	MILLS Stephen
746	MORRIS Joseph
747	MURPHY Wayne
748	NGAMOKI Pita
749	ORLOWSKI David
750	PAYNE Drew
751	PEMBERTON Paul
752	PIRIHI Jade
753	POTTER Leonard
754	RAHARUHI Kiha
755	RAINE Chris
756	REARDON Daniel
757	ROBINSON Michael
758	ROWSELL Jason
759	SHELFORD Angus
760	SMITH James
761	STONE Glenn
762	TEMAARI Ryan
763	TEPOHE Nathan
764	TEPU Patrick
765	THOMAS Jamie
766	THOMPSON Stacy
767	THURSTON Troy
768	TOGIA Sasa
769	TUPAEA Matthew
770	WALKER Stephen
771	WATENE Cory
772	WILLIAMSON Stephen
773	WIPERI Jason
774	DIEHL Armin
775	KELLY James
John Holland Pty Ltd - Savcor Finn (subcontractors)
776	BROWNING Paul
777	DAWSON Samual
778	HOWELL Justin
RCR Construction & Maintenance Pty Ltd
779	CAMPBELL Danny
780	DODSLEY Andrew
781	ELBOROUGH Kimley
782	FIELD Christopher
783	FRASER Laureen
784	FRASER Trevor
785	HAWKINS Stephen
786	LAMB Gregory
787	PARVIN Stephen
788	PLUNKETT Kevin
789	PORTER Mark
790	SEABURN Kevin
791	SOMERVILLE Ryan
792	SUTHERLAND Travis
793	TOKI Mitch
794	WALKER Wayne
795	WEBB Adrian
Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd
796	ANDERSON David
797	AYRES Brett
798	BEETS Bryan
799	BENJAMIN Edmund
800	BENSON Scott
801	BOSCO Adrian
802	BOWER Peter
803	BUSINOSKI Ilija
804	CAMPBELL Rhys
805	CARR Bryne
806	CHEAL John
807	CHRISTENSEN, Ross
808	COBB Brett
809	COOPER Dwanie
810	DOCKERTY Michael
811	DOHERTY Paul
812	ESDALE Adam
813	GIBBS Ian
814	GOODALL Darren
815	GORDON-DAVISON Kayne
816	GRECI David
817	HANNAFORD Gareth
818	HARRIS Guy
819	HARVEY Brian
820	HOWE Ben
821	KENNING Darrell
822	LEACH Gareth
823	MACALE David
824	MARCINKOWSKI Laurie
825	OLDHAM Scott
826	PEGRUM Brad
827	POON Ryan
828	PRIMROSE Darren
829	ROACH Greg
830	ROBERTS Jenny
831	ROBERTS Mick
832	SANDERS Jason
833	SELLECK Syd
834	SHEATHER Luke
835	SMITH Nathan
836	SODEN Derek
837	STEPHENSON Tony
838	STONER Andrew
839	SULLIVAN Scott
840	SWAN David
841	TAYLOR John
842	THOMAS Jamie
843	TURNER Robert
844	TWYFORD James
845	VAN ROOYEN Kelly
846	VAN WANROOY Justin
847	WALTERS Steve
848	WILSON Jeff
849	ABBOTT, Bill
850	BLIOKAS, Rob
851	CAKE, Mathew
852	CORBETT, Adam
853	KERR, Brian
854	KOVACESKI, Angel
855	MARAS, John
856	WELSH, Gary
857	WILSON, Michael
858	MARSH, Tony
CBI Constructors Pty Ltd
859
860	ALLMAN Robert
861	ARCARO Murray
862	ARCARO Nicholas
863	ATKINSON Stephen
864	BACON Kenneth
865	BAEZ Juan
866	BAEZ Sergio
867	BAIL Jason
868	BAILEY Troy
869
870
871	BECKER Peter
872	BECKMAN Alan
873	BELL Murray
874
875	BOBOS Carl
876	BRENNAN Stephen
877	BRITTAIN Timothy
878	BROOKS Raymond
879
880
881	CARMICHAEL James
882	CASTRO Dean
883	CHRISTENSEN Kenneth
884	CLARK Harley
885	CLARK Robert
886	CLEARY James
887	COELHO John
888	CONNELL Travis
889	CROSIER Andrew
890
891	DODD Peter
892	DONDAS Michael
893	DONNELLY Brett
894	DUPLESSIS Johannes
895	EDWARDS David
896	ELPHICK Jeffrey
897	FAUSTINO Victor
898	FERREIRA Jose
899	FRONTE Salvatore
900
901	GARNIER-BRADLEY Jason
902	GOGOLL Joel
903	GOODALL Tay
904	GROTH William
905	HAKIWAI Stirling
906	HARDINGHAM Adrian
907	HARRIS Ike
908	HEGARTY Steven
909	HOUSE Clayton
910	HUMPHREY David
911	HUNWICK Phillip
912	JARRETT Glenn
913	JOHNS Robert
914	JOHNSTON Anthony
915	KELLY Matthew
916	KINGHORN William
917	KOVACESKA Menka
918	KOVACESKI Donco
919
920	KRUGER Rodney
921	LANE Darrin
922	LANNIN Bradley
923	LAROSA Agostino
924	LE CERF Garry
925	LEE Mu Yeun
926	LILLEY Joseph
927	LIM Nao
928	LUDLAM John
929	MABBOTT Bruce
930	MacKINNON Graeme
931	MANNERING Peter
932	MARLOW Michael
933	MARTIN James
934	MARTIN Trevor
935	MATEIU Gherge
936	MAXWELL Daniel
937	McCABE Mark
938	McINERNEY John
939	MCINERNEY Todd
940	MCKENNA Henry
941	MCKENZIE Alan
942	MCKINNON David
943	MILLER Bradley
944	MILROY Gary
945	MINNS Neil
946	MITCHELL Robert
947	MORLEY Robert
948	NEWSHAM Garry
949	NOBLE Brendan
950	O'SHEA Daniel
951	PAYNE Kenneth
952	PERRY Marcus
953	PESTANA Jose
954	PIRIHI Dylan
955	RAZI-PANAH Jarwad
956	RICE Mark
957	RYAN John
958	SANDERS Dean
959	SANSOM Gregory
960	SCHMITT Gregory
961	SCOTT Robert
962	SHIELD Keith
963	SMYTHE Jason
964	SNELLIN Ronald
965	STUURSTRAAT Shannan
966	SURRIDGE Daniel
967	SVILICICH Lee
968	SWINNEY Antony
969	TAMAPUA Allan
970	TAYLOR Kim
971	TUKUAFU Finau
972
973	WAIARIKI Paul
974	WALSH John
975	WARNER Paul
976	WATTS Priscilla
977	WEAVER Blake
978	WEAVER Mark
979	WEIR Mitchell
980	WETERE Tirau
981	WOLSKI Daniel
982	WOOD Leon
983	WOODWARD Sam
United Group Resources Pty Ltd
984
985	Lional Abrahams
986	Lesley Ajaran
987
988	Nathan Arbery
989	Cody Arvidson
990	Mark Ashcroft
991	Adrian Baillie
992	Jonathan Barclay
993	Kenneth Barclay
994	Stephen Barnett
995	Rolando Bazaez
996	Louis Beaunoir
997	Jason Behncke
998	Jan Bennett
999	Troy Benton
1000	Arjun Bhoi
1001	Nitin Bhosale
1002	Marcel Biggar
1003	Francis Blampied
1004	Tommy Bonke
1005	Benjamin Boocock
1006	Nathan Bosworth
1007
1008	Christian Brekalo
1009	Nick Brekalo
1010	Andrew Brennan
1011	Christopher Browne
1012	Gabriel Bruno
1013	Marcus Burke
1014	Craig Cameron
1015
1016	Dean Cassidy
1017	Hasan Ceric
1018	Tony Chipchase
1019	Juho Choi
1020	Clint Chrisp
1021
1022
1023	Jye Coleman
1024	Dean Collins
1025	Andrew Collinson
1026	Collis James
1027
1028	John Couts
1029	Mark Coverly
1030	Joshua Cruice
1031	Alfredo Da Silva
1032
1033	Trevor Datson
1034
1035	Brian Davies
1036	Jeffrey Davis
1037
1038	Gerrit De Blanken
1039	James DeBruin
1040	Beau Deverall
1041	Claude Devos
1042	Manuel Dias
1043	Radwan Eltchelebi
1044
1045
1046
1047	Terence Fisher
1048	Mark Fleay
1049	Craig Fleming
1050	Katie Forbes
1051	Terrence Fox
1052	Jason Francis
1053	Michael Franke
1054	Damien Freeth
1055	John Frino
1056	Steven Gaby
1057
1058	David Gera
1059
1060	Paul Gnech
1061	Shaun Goldstone
1062	Anthony Gostlow
1063
1064	Phillip Grevell
1065	Roger Griffiths
1066	Michael Hagan
1067	Adrian Hage
1068
1069	Peter Harris
1070
1071
1072	John Heckscher
1073	Geoffrey Height
1074	Todd Heron
1075	Marcelene Heslop
1076	Graeme Hocking
1077	Peter Hoek
1078	Andrew Holden
1079
1080	Sean Hoskins
1081	Steven Hossack
1082	Harold Houghton
1083	Mervyn Houghton
1084
1085
1086	David Hull
1087	Joshua Humphries
1088	Glenn Hutton
1089
1090	Elias Israel
1091
1092	Sergio Jacobs
1093	Paul Jean-Pierre
1094	Craig Jeffs
1095	John Jenkins
1096	Kenneth Johnstone
1097	Mark Jones
1098	Ray Jones
1099	Robert Jones
1100	Fabian Joule
1101	Edan Kennedy
1102	Stuart (Alvin) Kerrigan
1103	Nigel Kiedo
1104	David Knyvett
1105	Travis Ladhams
1106
1107	Peter Law
1108	Paul Leach
1109	Chong-Won Lee
1110
1111	Mark Lindsay
1112
1113	Shannon Livingstone
1114	Jason Lockhart
1115	Stephen Lowther
1116	William Lyall
1117	Donald MacKay
1118	Brett Mackie
1119	Gerarado Magtalas
1120	Simeon Magtalas
1121	Thomas Mahar
1122	Matthew Manning
1123
1124	Garry Mansfield
1125
1126	Calvin Martin
1127	Andrew Mazlin
1128	Adam McAnany
1129	Darren McCamish
1130	Gary McCarthy
1131	Shane McClure
1132	Ian McCracken
1133	Matthew McGurgan
1134	Wayne McMahon
1135
1136	Spencer Meade
1137	Alan Middleton
1138	Simon Mieschbuehler
1139	Kane Mita
1140	Charles Mitchell
1141
1142	Erwin Montiere
1143	Nicholas Morley
1144	Steven Mott
1145	Steven Moxon
1146	Len Mudri
1147	Ian Mullan
1148
1149	Christopher Murray
1150	Michael Narbey
1151	Rodney Nelson
1152	Stuart Noakes
1153	Gregory Norris
1154	Stephen Novak
1155	Thomas O'Brien
1156	Luke O'Fee
1157	Damien O'Kane
1158	Russel Olsen
1159	Martin Osborne
1160	Robert Osbourne
1161	Pavo Parad
1162	Trevor Park
1163
1164	Graeme Penglase
1165	Mark Pertile
1166	Robert Peters
1167	Sotha Pheng
1168	Aaron Phyland
1169	David Pidgeon
1170	Robert Pippia
1171	Murray Porter
1172
1173	Matthew Ramage
1174	Daniel Reddie
1175	Ronald Robinson
1176	Wayne Roelandts
1177
1178	Phillip Rowell
1179	Steven Sakic
1180	Jin (Fred) Sang-Yoo
1181	Ivan Sapina
1182	Michael Schoeman
1183	Dimitru Serban
1184	Yong Shao
1185	Denny Singleton
1186
1187	Charles Snyman
1188	Kevin Squibb
1189	Ralph Stapelfeldt
1190	Gary Stramare
1191	Clive Sucks
1192	Steven Sulenta
1193	Steven Tarran
1194	Gary Taylor
1195	Joseph Taylor
1196	Allan Thompson
1197	Bradley Thompson
1198	Christopher Thornhill
1199	Neil Tollison
1200	Alberto Tome
1201	Brett Tooby
1202	Andre Turner
1203	Mark Tutton
1204	Brendan Tye
1205	Colin Tyrer
1206	Peter Ugle
1207	Johnny Van Wyk
1208	Arnoldus Van Wyke
1209	Adrian Vandersluis
1210	Darryl Vickers
1211	Joel Von Nida
1212	Noel Webster
1213	Dean Weiss
1214
1215	Drew Wickenden
1216
1217
1218	Gabriel Williams
1219	Gregory Williams
1220	Henry Wynkwaardt
1221	Noel Zanetti
1222	Matthew Zonta
1223	Pero Zuvela
1224	Michael Abelha
1225	Richard Alcott
1226	David Ali
1227	Noel Amari
1228
1229	Ryan Augustus
1230	Mark Bailey
1231	David Baines
1232	Fred Baker
1233	Reyon Band
1234	Antony Barlow
1235	Liam Barron
1236	Todd Bartlett
1237	Laurence Bascombe
1238	John Basso
1239	Mark Bateman
1240	Richard Bauer
1241	John Bernard
1242	Craig Berry
1243
1244	Morgan Blake
1245	Ellen Bolton
1246	Slobodan Brakus
1247	Benjamin Brand
1248
1249	Tyrone Briffa
1250
1251	Ivaso Buac
1252	Ben Burns
1253	Ian Byrne
1254	Iain Calder
1255	Aaron Calley
1256	Ross Cameron
1257	Les Camilleri
1258
1259	Luke Cashman
1260	Damien Chant
1261	Michael Christensen
1262
1263	Paul Cole
1264
1265	Anthony Cooper
1266	Jason Cornwell
1267	Clyde Cowley
1268
1269	Michael Crook
1270
1271
1272	Graeme Daniel
1273	Mathias Dann
1274
1275	Andrew Davies
1276	Kevin Davis
1277	Gary Davison
1278	Joe De Faria
1279	Matthew De Glanville
1280	Chad De Rooy
1281
1282	Wade Den Ridder
1283	Matthew Denton
1284	Daniele Dimasi
1285	Arnolda Do Carmo
1286	Andrew Dobson
1287	Tony Dobson
1288
1289	Roland Edwards
1290
1291	Cameron Ewart
1292	Bud Feenstra
1293	Miroslav Ferluga
1294	Paulo Fernandes
1295
1296
1297	Tristan Fuller
1298	Andrew Gaffney
1299	Graeme Geddes
1300	Peter Geisner
1301	Nicholas George
1302	Guiseppe Giglia
1303	Chris Gillen
1304
1305	Craig Goold
1306
1307	Ian Grace
1308	Joseph Green
1309	Phillip Green
1310	Andrew Greene
1311	Paul Grgurovic
1312	Mark Haak
1313	David Hacking
1314	Gabriel Halkyard
1315	Steven Hall
1316	Lyncon Halligan
1317	Cy Hamilton
1318	Chris Hancock
1319	Jarrid Harrison
1320	Greg Hatchett
1321	Jarrad Hawkins
1322
1323	Luke Heaney
1324
1325	Malcolm Herring
1326
1327	Nathan Hicks
1328	Ben Hodkinson
1329	Tim Holdsworth
1330	Craig Holst
1331
1332	Karatehana Horo
1333	Kevin Howat
1334	Vince Howes
1335	Tyrone Hoys
1336	Gavin Hughes
1337	Victor Hugo
1338	Paul Hulbert
1339	Mark Huyshe
1340	Jamie Ingie
1341	Norman Jamieson
1342
1343	Quentin Jensen
1344	Michelle Jeremiah
1345	Ashley Jones
1346	Bodhi Jones
1347	Martin Jones
1348
1349	Savo Katic
1350	Kosta Katsidis
1351	James Keene
1352	Paul Kelly
1353	David Kemp
1354	Joshua Klynsoon
1355	Milan Krstanoski
1356	Tonganu Kukutai
1357	Nathan Lake
1358	Daniel Lawrence
1359	Jeffrey Lawson
1360	Shane Leworthy
1361	Robin Lilly
1362	Charles Liness
1363	William Logan
1364	Christopher Luta
1365	Jason MacDonald
1366
1367	Callum Malloch-Smith
1368
1369	Cleopas Mashuta
1370	Craig Maxwell
1371
1372	Dean McBride
1373	Craig McCartney
1374	Charles McClellan
1375	Duncan McDonald
1376	Ian McDonald
1377	Nicole McGinty
1378	Allan McKinnon
1379	Ross McMiles
1380	Alan McMillan
1381
1382	Kenneth Mendoza
1383
1384	Charles Miller
1385	Phillip Millington
1386	Benjamin Morcom
1387	Matthew Morehu
1388
1389
1390	Jeremi Musulin
1391	Glen Neal
1392
1393	Tim Nelson
1394	Justin Noakes
1395	Nowak Woyciech
1396	Aurelio Nunes
1397	Ashley O'Brien
1398	Tim Ogden
1399	Mao Ouk
1400	David Ovens
1401

1402
1403
1404	Ben Penglase
1405	Joel Penglase
1406	Ashley Pickles
1407	Darryl Pickles
1408	Ryan Pickles
1409	John Pratt
1410	John Preston
1411	Colin Price
1412	Curtis Ransfield
1413	Gerald Ransfield
1414	Steven Reid
1415	Glen Robinson
1416	Paul Roche
1417
1418	Rodrigo Ruiz
1419	Joseph Ryder
1420	Grgo Saric
1421	Moreno Serramono
1422	Jose Simoes
1423	Kenneth Simon
1424	Todd Sitnikoski
1425	Shelby Skinner
1426	Hamish Smith
1427	Mark Smith
1428
1429	Kurt Stellenburg
1430	Andrew Stevens
1431
1432	Selina Stolp
1433
1434	Wayne Sutherland
1435	James Taylor
1436	Jeremy Teaia
1437	Shane Thomas
1438	Leslie Thompson
1439	Paul Todd
1440	Karl Travers
1441	Joshua Trunfio
1442	Herbert Tucker
1443	Angela Tumney
1444
1445	Matthew Uepa
1446	Raul Uriona
1447
1448	Andrea Vaega
1449	Christopher Van Arkel
1450	Liam Wakefield
1451	Michael Walker
1452
1453	Alan Walker
1454	Simon Wallace
1455	Steve Waltl
1456	Michael Webb
1457
1458
1459
1460	Rodney Williams
1461	Jason Wilson
1462	Daryl Wood
1463	John Wyllie
1464	Tyron Youlden
1465	Leslie Young
1466	Matthew Young
1467
1468	James Zauch
1469	Charles Bell
1470	Richard D'Costa
1471	Jarrad Garrick
1472	James Odiam
1473	Colin Searle
1474	Joe Silk