World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish

Prac t i ces -

I n t e r u i i n j u n c t i o n

C'OildUCt

a l leged

t o be m.~slead~.ng

and deceptive - Pr jnc ip les appl icable

t o

inter im

Injunct ions.

Trade

Pract ices

Act

1974,

ss.52, 53(c)

and SU(2).

Sydncy , 2nd. Iaovenber , 1 977

Appellant

(Respondent)

A I s T D :

ROBERT

Jl!FES

Pl!RISH

Respondent

(Applicanz)

C O W 4 :

Eown C . J . ,

Franki and. Erennan JJ.

2nd November, 1977

G o m r T c J a : This i s an appeal from the decislon and orders of a single Judge of t h i s Cou1.t g ran t ing an interrcl

lnjunc'tlon. The proceedlngs

were

comnenccb. by Ylr. Robert

James ParlsJl.

obtained an o r d e r n i s i c a l l m g

upon

World

Series Cricket Pty. Limited

t o show

cause why

c e r t s i n

in junc t iocs s e t f o r t h i n €lve numbered

paragraphs

should

not be granted against

it.

the reLurn of t he o rde r ,

which v a s f i x e d f o r the next day, the

matter WIZS d e a l t

with by the Judge below oli

an in t e r locu to ry basis.

The background

I a c t s a r e n o t

dispute .

Ur.	Pans11 j s -the Chairman of the kustrnlla? Crjcket Eoard.

which i s an adminis t ra t lve

body -Lhat €or many years has

included anongst

i ts functions

the orLanlsa t lon

r ep resen ta t lve

cricket matches

be 1;ween

Aus

tralia apd other countries. These

matches are

h o v n as

t e s t matches

and

the c r i cke t p l ayed in

- *

those matches

is linown as t e s t

c r i c k e t .

The Aus t ra l ian

Cricket

Board

a p p o l n t s s e l e c t o r s t o s e l e c t c r i c k e t e r s t o

represent Aus t ra l ia .

The

Board

i s a

member

of -&e

In t e rna t lona l

Cricket Conference which

i s an assoc ia t ion

whose members a r e

the governing boerds

of varlous c r l cke t ing countries.

Internatj-onal crlclcet

gene ra l ly con t ro l l ed

t h e l n t d n e t l m i l

Crlclret Conlerence,

but when

Aus t r a l i a p l ays

s e r i e s of

t e s t matches

with

ano the r couf i t ry , t ha t t e s t s e r i e s

i s

organlsed

the Aus t ra l ian Cr icke t

Board and

t h e c r i c k e t m g a d m i n i s t r a t l v e

body

the other country concerned.

Tnus,

f o r rmny

years,

when	t e s t c r i c k e t h a s b e e n p l a y e d i n A u s t r a l i a , t h e o n l y

Austral ian body

concerned

i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n

thosa cricke-t;

matches has been the Australian Cricket Board.

Although T k ' l r .

Pa r l sh i s t h e

Chairman

t h e Australl;;;

Crrcket Board,

d id no t commence t h e ac t ion

i n a

representa t ive capac l ty

€or

t h e Board, but brought the

proceedings personally.

It was

comnlon ground that the appe l l an t

1 s

a company vhich .is organis ing a s e r i e s of cr lcket matches

t o be

played

i n A u s t r a l m i n t h e coming

cr icket

season,

solne

o€ V J h l C h

will be lcnovn as "Super Tests".

The appe l l an t , It appears,

hac

I - -

entered into contractual arrangements

vat11 a

number

oI"

c r i c k e t e r s vho

formerly represented

t h e n c o u n t r i e s i n t e s t

c r i cke t .

These

arrangements

provide

tha t those

cricketers

will

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

c r i c k e t

matqhes organisecl

by the appel lan t .

The appel lant

proposals

1i.r.s-t

became

publ ic ly knom

03 14th IbTay

1977 afid

s ince then , there has

been widespread

publicity about the proposed

IlSuper Testsll.

Those matches

m11 be played between teams

tha t v1111 include

teams made Aus t ra l ia os P-us t ra l laPs te rn ,

Aus t r a l i an c r i cke te r s vh lch

T r i l l be calleci

and

Vest

Indlan

c r i c k e t e r s

v?na

wlll	form a team licoyrn as Vest Indles,	o r The \!est	Ind - i e s t em.	, .
, '

or abou t t he

21 st

September 1977

t h e r e

was published ia a magazine kno?m as t h e Australian ?lomen's

Weekly a i s sue ac tua l ly bo re the da t e

coloured brochure prepared

bjr

t he appe l l ah t .

The

28th

September

1977.

I t was

th i s brochure

tha t Me.

Per ish based par t

his complaint .

The brochure 1s i n evidence

E x l n b i t llBrl.

It contains

statements

ab0u.t

the proposed Super Test series, photographs

o€

crlclceters !:ha

will

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

schedu1.e

of t h e d a t e s t o the matches

the matches, and an order

form by

which

t i c k e t s

may be

obtained.

The photographs

include

photographs o f p layers wear ing c r icke t caps

r:hich

bear the

i n s i g n i a of

the cocntr les

f o r whom

they p l ayed t e s t c r i cke t .

The

brochure mclu3es the following statements

- 4 -

"On

November

t h i s y e a r , t h e h e s t

t he v o r l d e s

professlonnl cr lc l re ters

arrive

i n Melbounle

t o j o i n

Austral . lacs top plzyers

l n a smmer-long

se r l c s

t he I ~ O S

cxci t lng professional cr lckct matches ever

seen i n h s t r a l i a " .

World Series Crlcket has contracted t l lc wcrldss top

c r i cke te r s

t o p a r t i c i p a t e

1.11

t h l s

,sunmerPk Svper Test

series.

They niciude such players as

. .

Aus t r a l l a ' s

record-breaking wicket keeper Rod Harsh .

D .

The

g rea t

Dennls

L-t.l.lee

. . . back

In zctlon In the Super Tests

strel?gthen the Australian

team1!.

Irkus

t r a l i a :

Undoub Ledly a

mu.ch

s t ronger team than that

vhich played in England".

Wes t

Ind-iesa

The

br l l l i en t Ves t

Ind ies

squad ,

lncludlng

. . .

IIl'he world:

This team villlx made up of t h e b e s t

p layers from the

west

Iodles

team plus

o .

(here

a r e l i s t e d

a number

of &&ish,

Pakis tan i and Sourth

Afr lcan c r lcke ters )

. . . who

have

no t been seen wder

Test biatch condi t lons in Auskral ia

f o r some time".

Prominent

the brochure are the

words lll?orld Series CricketIt,

and a

logo

the appel lan t bear ing the vords Vor ld Ser ies

Cricket t t .

Emphasis

1s p laced ln

The

brochure

t h e a b l l l t y

the cricketers concerned

and

the expected high standard

the

cricket matches,

tlie p r i ze money beifig offered

to the winning

teams, and

the coaching c lmics

which

the c r i cke te r s

will

g17re.

I t is a l so emphasised t h a t t h e

Super Tests

m11 be played

over

f ive days ,

and

tha t a l l .

matches

m11 be played under accepted

In te rna t iona l Cr icke t Law

and

S-tandards. There

was

evj dencc

t h a t t h e

magazine in

vhich the brochure

was publ ished, the

AusLralian llomenrs Veelily, is read by approximately L1556 of %:omen

in Australia over the age

s ix teen ,

and

app-oxlmately

1,0@0,000 men	and	t h a t the magazine	has a	c i r c u l a t i o n which exceed<
8@0,000.

The proceedings !rere brought by Nr, Par ish

pursuant

s.80 of

the Trade Pract ices

Act 197h.

sought

lnJunct lons res t ra ln ing

World

Serles Crlcke L;

Pty.

Limlted.

from engaging

m conduct which

was alleged to contravene ss.52

and 53( c ) of s h a l l n o t , i n t r a G e

t h e f c t .

Sec-tlon 52 p r o v i d e s h a 2

corpora t icn

cominerce,

engage i n conduct that

misleading o r deceptive o r which i s l i k e l y t o mislead

or decelve.

Secl ion 53(c)

provides,

s o fa r as i s r e l evan t ,

that a

c o r p o x t x n

s h a l l n o t ,

i n t r a d e 01-

commerce,

in connec t ion

with

t h e

promotion by any means 01

the supply of services , represent

T!LX

s e rv i ces haw sponsorship or

approval

they

do not have.

The

main

complaint m s d e on behalf of

Mr.

Par i sh before the learned

Judge beloli, appears

t o have been

t.hat

the brochure (Zxhibi t

{'E'')

was misleadlng and deceptlve In t h a t it Eight mislead a reader

i n t o t h i l k i n g t h a t t h e s e r i e s

cr icket matches

belr?g orga~!? G-6

by Vorld.

Series Crlcket Pty. Limited were organised

the

Austral ian Cricket

Board.

Before

this

Court

the conplplc?lnt

was expanded.

It vas submitted that the uord

"Test",

the

emblems

and

motlfs

ghovn

t h e p l a y e r s ' o u t € i t s , t h e

descr lptzons 0.f

thc competmg teams by reference

t o na t ions

o r coun t r i e s , t he r e l e rence to the t r ad i t i ona l

laws

c r ~ x k e t ,

were

intended

to and

dld evoke a

response

i n t h e

r e c i p i e n t of

Lhe

publ ica t ion tha t re ference was

being made

t o

something which7

I n t h e

minds

of the publ ic , had only

had

one

charac te r .€or t h e l as t f i f t y y e a r s ;

i n other words,

it was

t o the

tradi t Lon

of t e s

c r i c k e t that the appeal

was

made.

- 6 -

The

learned Judge held that

the

brochure vould

mlslead a significant sec t ion of

the public into vhose hands

it came,

l n t o believing t h a t "Super Tests" were t e s ts orgam.zed

the Aus t ra l ian Cr icke t

Board.

During the course

o f

the hear lng

below,

t h e

appellant Informed the Court

t ha t it had prepared a number

o f

televlsion advertlsements which

had arranged to be

shown

on t e l e v i s i o n I n

Sydney and Nelbourne.

The learned Judge

found

t h a t one O J ~

these advertisements would be likely -to con-cravene

s.52

because it used the words

I1Super Tests" on

three occasions,

on one of ~111.ch

the conkext suggested

i d e n t i i l c a t l o a with

t e s t

matches as previously organised

His

Honour

ordered tha t

World

Ser les Cr icke t

Pty.

Limited be restrained from engaging

i n t h e

€o l lo~ :mg conduct :-

1'1 .

Any conduct tha t

i s misleading or deceptive or IS

likely t o mislead o r deceive.

2 .

R1b l i sh ing~or caus ing to be

published

any

f u r t h e r

advcrhsemenL j n t h e €orm o f

the a&vertr.serr!ext

bemg

exh lb l t EFG

1 t o t h e a € € L d a n t

Edward FurnlTJal

GrlL'fin sworn 22nd

September,

1977 and

f i l e d h e r e i n .

Representing exTressly

o r hy implica-tlon that any

cr-iclw L; matches o q p n s e d by i I; have the sponsorshlp

o r approval o f

o r any a f i d l a t l o a w L t h t h e Australian

C n c k e t

Board

the Intcrnat lonal Crjdcet Conference.

4. Referr ing 111 such a way as t o be mjsleadlng o r deceptive

t o any crlcltet matches organised

by it as I1Testsl1 o r

IITesl: Series" o r llSuper Testsf1.

5 .

- 7 -

The

application

i l d o r e -thc learned Judge

belo.::

.Cor

a n interim inJuncLion

was based upon

s .80 (2 ) op t h e

Act.

T h a t

section

provides:-

“ ( 2 )

W e r e

i n

t h e o p n i o n o f

t h c C o u r t

is’is

d c s l r a b l e t o

,CO,

the Court

may

g ran t

an interim 1nJunc Lion pend.lng

dc cennination

of an appl ica tmn under subsec t ion

(1 )!l.

Sect ion

80( 1 )

empovIers

the Court , on the zpppl lcat ion of , inter

a l i a ,

“any other person!’,

g r a n t a n i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n l n r

person from engzgiiig

conduct that const i - tutes

o r would

cons t l tu.te

a contravention of

ss.52 o r 53( c )

The Court may

grant the interim Injunction whether

no t i t appears

that

t h e

pe r son to be r e s t r a lned in t ends

engage

again,

o r

t o c o n t m u e

t o engage,

i n such conduct

( S . EO( 4 )

) .

?!here an InJmc-tlon is

sought by the PIinlster

o r t h e Cornmlssion,

an undertaking a5 t o

damages

cannot be requ~red

o f

them

as a

condi t lon f o r t h e

grant ing of

in t e r im mjuqc t lon

( s . 8 0 ( 6 ) ) .

The	appel lant submit ted that the learned Judge

below misaoprehended

h i s

func t lon

or?

a p p l l c a t i o n f o r 8 n m t e r l a

i n junc t lo i i , i n

that

he found

faci; on the evidence before

h i m

that

the appel lan t*s adver t i sement

would

l i k e l y t o mlslead.

o r

deceive,

and grounded

t k e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f s o l e l y

t h a t

f ind ing .

The Court 1 s given jurisdiction t o gran t an

in te rm ~ .n junc t . ion under s.SO(2)

.\!her?,

In 1 ts

opinion,

“ i t is

- 8 -

I .

desirable

do sol1.

These words confer a jud~.clal. d s c r e t l o n

of the widest kind

upon

the Court .

i s n o t a n a r b i t r a r y

d i s c r e t i o n but

one

t o be

exe rc l sec1 jud ic l a l ly in

accGrdence

wi th pr inc ip le .

The

p r i n c l p l e s c o m e r l i n g

t h e g r a n t

o f

- 3

i n t e r locu to ry in junc t ions

were

developed 1.n

the Court

Chanc,?ry,

but have been

moulded t o what

is appropriate f o r d i1 fe ren t

j u r i s d l c t i o n s i n which

in t e r locu to ry r e l i e l :

may

be obtained.

I'lheLher

c o t

t h e J u r m d i c t l o n

b a n g e x e r a s e d

equi tab le ,

i- t i s inherent

i n the na tu re

an zppl lca t lon for in te r locui - t . ry

r e l i e f t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e

upon

which

Lhe

app l i ca t ion must

de termlned will

be lncoyple te and u.nzatisfac-korg

f n r t h e purpose

making

f i n a l f i n d l n g .

I n Beecham GXXID

Limited v.

B r i s t o l L2'cc8r:13 .--l 7 -

Pty. Limited (196s) 118 C.L.R.

616,

-the Full Court of t h e X>.$:

Court granted an inter locutory injunct ion pursuant

t o

i t s

s t a t v t o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r

S . 31

the

Judiclarjr

Act

1 903,

t o make such orders

i n the caus? beyore

rt* as were j u s t .

The

High Court

was

se ized o f the matter under the Patents

Act

1952,

and was Nevertheless,

not exerc is ing any inherent equi tab le jur i sd ic t ion .

invoked pr inciples developed in equi ty

t o

determine how

shoula' exercl

i t s

s t a t u t o r y JUl-isdj c t i o n .

-khough i n some ways

depart ing fi-orn those p r i n c l p l c s , where

I;he

s p e c l a l n a t c r e

o f

t h e p a t e n t

jurisdiction

made

1-1;

appropriatg t o

do so.

The High Court expresscd

the view that

i n a l l

cases ,

inc ludmg pa ten t cases ,

a cour t , r:hen

colltemplating granting

01-

re€us.mg

i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l l e f ,

rnust

d i r e c t

i t s e l f

to both

t l e

- 9 -

pr ima fac ie s t rength

t h e p l a ln t l l f r s claim and

The

balance

o f convenience. fac i e case ,

A p l a i n t i f 1 1 s requulred t o make

out a prlma

I I m t h e sense t h a t i f

the eviderlce remalns

as it X,

t h e r e is a

p robab i l i t y t ha t a t the Trial o€

t h e act1011,

t h e

p l a i n t i f f

vi11

held

eat

t led

re l . ief" .

( Ibid.

p .622) .

The

s t rength of the case

which

t h e p l a i n t i f €

must

make

ou t will

depend

upon -the the consequences -Allch

na ture of t h e r i g h t

which he i s seeklng to

assert, and

1 ~ 1 1

€low from t h e making o f

the inter1ocEi;r

order.

Holrever,

where

t h e f a c t s a r e s e r i o u s l y

i n d ispute ,

t h e

cour t will

not undertake

a p r e l i m i n a r y t r i a l

o€

the actio!?

I n

order -to fo-recast

a probable resu l t ,

but

r a t h e r ,

i f

t n e

p l a in t i f f : has

a f a i r chance of

success (and what

rill be

required

will

vary accordmg to the na ture of the case) , the

cour t T v i l l proceed to

look

t o t h e b e l a n c e

convenience.

It has recent ly been sa id

by t h e House of

Lords i n l!!rerlcaa	Cyanarnld v.	E t h c o r ~ L i m i t e d ('1975) A.C.	396
--I

that i f

t h e cour t i s satisfied

that t h e r e 1 s a

ser ious questJon

t o be t r led ,

shou ld no t fu r the r t e s t t he s t r eng th o f t he

plaintiff's Ccse before deciding

the

balance

convenience.

may be tha t

111 a case such

as the p re sen t t he re

i s no

essertlal

dlf€ererlce between the views

o€

t h e Iligh Court

and OP t h e Ho-~sc

of Lords must make out.

t o t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e c a s e

which

the

appl lcant

Vhether it is necessary -to e s t a b l l s h a prima facie

case in the

Beecham

sense,

ser ious ques t ion to be t r led

the Amr~-can C~ranav~id sense,

what ill. be required

will 7rary Prom

case to case.

I1 khere is a divergence i n approach, it voulil

be proper

€01-

t h i s C o u r t t o f o l l o v t h e

Judgment

the 3lgh

C o l i r c

- 10 -

Proceedings under the Trade Practices Act

have

spec la l cha rac t e r

ill t h a t t h e Act

d e a l s n t h t h e proccctlon

o f t h e p u b l l c i n t e r e s t ,

and

i n t h e i n s t a t c a s e ,

with

t h e

pro tec t ion of

consurrlers.

In the course

o f p ro tec t lng tha t p-:1311 c

l n t e r e s t ,

t h e Act

a l so enables

p a r t y t o seek rel ief f roIQ

JP~W; :

t o his

o m i n t e r e s t s .

appl icant f o r an injunct ion under

5 .E@

need not

shov t h a t

p r o p r i e t a r y i o t e r e s t

h l s

i s a f f ec t cd ,

o r

that he has suf fered spec ia l

damage,

01'

inldeed,

thar. he

personal ly has

su i f e red any damage a t a l l .

Even

r h e r e t h e

app l i ca t ion i s brought by

r iva l

competitor seeking redress

o f

damage

i l ls

bu-slness caused by the al legedly unfair

and

11'Legal

p r a c t i c e s

the respondent,

the

appl.ication,

though

it vindica tes

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

o f

the conpeti-tor,

a t

t h e

same

time secures

Lhe

pub l i c i n t e re s t o f

coasumer

pro tec t ion .

TlIougli,

f o r example,

the complaint under Part

o f t h e Act

I n corne

- l 1 -

s e r v l c e s a m i l a b l e	€or	purchase, and	i s not rnlsled	by	deceptlve
t r ade p rac t i ces .

These

f a c t o r s ,

however,

although

important

- -

i n determlning

khat

consideratlons should be taken into account

when

a s ses smg the s t r eng th o f

the appl icant ' s case

and when

weighing the balance

o€

Convenience,

n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e

balance

convenience

should

ignored

that a

p a r t y ' s

ent i t lement

-to m t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f s h o u l d

d.epend

or?

an assessment

o€

€ac t s made €ram unsa t i s f ac to ry evidence.

The reasons whlch

m i l i t a t e a g a i n s t

such

course apply

v i t h

equa l fo rce to

proceedlngs under the Trade Practices Act

they do

elsewhere.

That is not

say

tha t

there

a r e r?ot

s p e c j a l

f a c t o r s t o

taken into account

when

e x e r c i s i n g j u r l s d l c t l o n

under

the Trade Practices

Act.

Special

considerat ions

m t h

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

common

law

in junc t ions to r e s t r a in de fama t ion , i n junc t lons to

res t ra in breach of

pa t en t

and

i n j u n c t i o n s t o r e s t r a i n b r e a c h

copyrlght.

In The

s2me

way

spec ia l

cons idera t ions

wi11.

a r l s e

under

Lhe

Trade Practices Act, and the Court

wlll

no t necessa r l ly

apply all o€

t h e p r l n c i p l e s

which a court of equli-y

would apply

i n a

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

vere

i n i s s u e .

Jn 111s reason.5 €er judgment

the

learned

Judge

below staked.

cer ta i l l findings of f a c t .

These were not expressed

I;o

f i n d m g s

o f

f a c t s u f f i c i e n l ; t o e s t a b l i s h

thal; the epplj .cant

' .

had

such

possibCLi ty

o f

success on the €ma l hea r ing tha t

1-t rmuld

- 12 -

jus t i€y the Cour t in gra l l t lng an in te r locutory in junc t ion

i f , on -the balance

01 convenience, it was appropriate t o do

so .

Thus hls Honour found t h a t Lhe b rochure

in se r t ed in

the Austral ian

WomenPs l~eek ly magazine Viould 'mislead

s ignif icant sect ion.of the publ lc into vhose hands

came

in to th i s e r ro r t ha t FSuper Tes t s?

were

t e s t s o rgan i sed

the Austral lan Cricket

Board.'#

H i s Honour

found

advert isenent for television which used

the words IISuper

Tests1I on

one

occas lon in

co?ltext suggesting idell t if icatlon

v n t h Test Hatches as previously organised

was

I!. .

.probably

l i k e l y

t o mislead because of such

ldenti€icationvl.

A s t o

the renaming adver t i sements , h i s

Honour

found tha t

! l . .

.on

the present s ta te of the ev idence

n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t

people will

be mlsled or deceived.Iv.

These €indings

!rere a t tacked

the appe l l an t a s be ing € ina l f i ndmgs o f f ac t ,

and

the respondent

d id n o t d i s p u t e t h a t

that was

the case.

It was

a l so assumed by

bo th pa r t l e s

t o the appea l tha t

the Judge below had not considered where the balance

of convenience e n t i r e l y a c c u r a w .

lay,

These

assumptions

might

not

His	Honour did on more than one occaslon

qua l i fy his

€indings as being

made

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

of the evidencell, and although his

Honour

d ld

n o t r e f e r

t o the balance

ol" convenience by uslne; that phrase, he c'id

! l

- 13 -

bear

i n mind,

1 1 . .

. that

there

appear to be al- ternat ive

expressions wh:rhlch would seem t o be adequate

t o descr lbe

SSuper Testsv and

it would appear a lso

that t o emphaslse

- 7

the dl€ference

be-hreer? Flsuper Tests ' and tests arranged

by t h e Aus Lrallan Cricks t Board v?ould present no

difficulty".

That observation

would seem t o be r e l evan t

only on the balance	01 convenience.
However, on the whole3 I am of

op in ion tha t

hjs

Honour

did f a l l i n t o

error

I n discharging

hls

t a s k

t h a t h e

did n o t d l r e c t h i s

mnd

t o f i n d i n g

whether

a prima

facie case had been

made

out n o r t o t h e

question whether,

i f it had,

the

balance

convenience

requl red

the gran t

inpmct ive

re l ie€ . Fur thermore ,

am of opinion the orders

made were m some re spec t s , t o

which I refer la ter , open to ob jec t ion .

Tn the

circumstances

I th ink

the Court should intervme

and come t o i-cs own

I	conclusions.

Y l . P a r l s h s p e c i f i c a l l y

complained

or'

t h e

brochure which

i s Exhibi t I1Bt1, and of the television advert~.sements.

His

compla in t a l so re la ted genera l ly to the

use

t h e words

- 1 4 -

llTestsll or

"Test series1!

IISuper

Testsll and the reference

l lAustral lan team1' or

"Aws Lrallall

i n a s s o c i a t l o n wlth

c r i c k e t -Lean,

vJhere used in the b rochure

elserrhere including

te levis ion advert isements .

I t 1 s suggested that persons reading

see ing the ma te r i a l r e f e r r ed to migh t

wrongly

colne

t o t h e

conclusion that the matches bemg publlcised by the appellant

were organised

or had the approval

o f the Australian Cricket

Board

o r the International Cricket Conference,

o r were

organised

o r had the approval

those In authority i n A u s t r a l i a who had

h i the r to

con t ro l l ed c r i cke t .

Counsel

f o r Pir.

Parish

lso

argued

t h a t t h e r e

was

p o s s i b i l i t y

o r e r r o r i n t h a t

person reading

this materlal might wrongly conclude

that

matches berng

comiucked

the appe l l an t

were

The

l a s t i n a

descending t rad i t lona l

s e r i e s

o f

i n t e r n a t i o n a l games

and

i n some

Tray

had -the

same

qual i ty .

T h l s l a s t argument i s somewhat

e lus ive and

may

perhaps be said to

depend upon

g i v m g t o t h e v o r d

II t e s t "

a secondary meaning' which would not be met by the matches conducted

by	the appel lant and which does not necessar i ly involve any

knowledge

who

a r e t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c o n t r o l l i n g c r i c k e t

i n Aus t ra l ia .

For

the appe l l an t ,

World

Series Cricket Pty.

Limited, it was argued tha t

anyone suf.€icicntly knowledgeable

about cr jc l re t to

come

to the conc lus ion

tha t

the matches vere

being organised

o r approved by the Australian Cricket

Board

o r

the In te rna t iona l Cr ic l~e t Conference

t h e m t h o r l t i e s

c o n t r o l l i n g c r i c k e t i n

Australia,

would

i n e v i t a b l y be aware

- 15 -

of the greatly publ. icised conflicl; between the appellant and

those aukhor i t ies

r e l a t i o n

-to

the staging of

these

matches.

However, a person may have-some acquaintance

wi th e s t ab l i shed t e s t c r i cke t w i thou t

knowing

whom

t h a t c r l c l i e t

i s organised, and I.€ he i s misled into bel leving

that World

S e r i e s c r l c k e t

i s of the

same

na ture

t e s t c r i c k e t , h e

may

conclude that

it 1 s organised by

whatever body

o r g a n i s e s t e s t

cricket. Advertisements

o r publ ica t lons

that

mislead

persons

l n t o that e r r o r would

contravene

s.52.

I n t h e

same way

it is

s u f f i c i e n t

i n a

su i t

fo r pas s ing o f f

that

the pub l i c a s soc la t e

the defendantcs goods

as being of the

same manufacture as those

of the

plaintiff

because of

t h e n similar get-up and appearance,

vrithou t

knowing

the i dca - t i t y

o f

the manufacturer.

is t o b e

remembered

tha t the advertiseJ1ents

a re des igned to

meet a very wiae audience which

will

include

people possesslng the widest possible range of

knowledge

o r

lack of

knowledge

about c r icke t

and prevlous assoc ia t ion

o r

l ack o f a s soc ia t ion

with

i t .

the in te r l .ocutory s tage ,

it is , I

th ink ,

i nadv i sab le to expres s de t a l l ed

o r

concluded

vlevrs

the evjdence

r e l a t i n g

the

i ssues

i n d ispute . Br le f ly ,

of opinion

t h a t a prima f a c i e c a s e i n t h e

Beecham sense has been

established

by Fk. Par l sh for

some

-form of

interlocutory

r e l i e f i n r e l a t l o n

t o the use

o f

the words l1TestsIf o r "Test Ser ies" o r IISuper Tests" .

The word

lrTcstl1 i s a

word

wlnch

commonly

r e f e r s t o e s t a b l i s h e d

t e s t c r i c k e t .

It is no t uncommon

for .

tha t

!\:ord

I;o

be qua l l f l ed

- I 6 -

I	.
I
l

by an ad jec t ive , as

m the expresslon IICentenary Test".

a l s o

op in ion tha t

a prima .facie case has been

established

f o r l n t e r locu to ry use of t he words

rellcf

l imi t ed

kmd

I n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

the	Australian	team" o r llAus	t ra l ia1! .	These
3

are ordinary acquire a monopoly i n t h e i r use should be dlscouraged.

words i n the English

language.

attempt

However,

thlnli

prima

facie case has been

made

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

use

i n r e l a t l - o n t o matches organised

the appe l l an t

between

Austral ian

and

Vest

Indian players .

Such matches were advertised

in the brochure

(Exhlbil;

'[Bt1) as l lAustral ia

Vest

Indlesll.

The

appel lan t

gave an assurance

the

Court

t h a t it had no

in t en t ion o f publ ishing o r causing t o be published

any

fur ther adver t i sement in the

form

of the brochure,

E x h i b i t

l 'B1 l . L

Although the Court

may

grant an in te r im inpnct ion whether

or not

the person in tends to

engage

i n conduct of the kind sought

t o be

prohib i ted ,

( s . 8 0 ( 4 ) ) ,

neve r the l e s s ,

i n

t he

c i r cuns t ances ,

would be

content t o allow matters

t o rest on the appe l l an t ' s

assurance

pending

t11e hearing.

I would, i n any event,

propose

t o r e s e r v e l i b e r t y

t o apply.

In r e l a t l o n t o t he ma t t e r s

on which

NI-.

Par ish

has made out a

prlma

facie case, the quest lon ar ises whether ,

the balance

convenlence, injunct ive rel ief should

granted.

For

the appel lan t

it was

submitted that the respondent

was

g u l l t y

o f l aches t o take in to account in weighng

which

was

d i sc re t l ona ry . l ac t o r which the Court ought

the balance

convenlence s o as

d i s e n t i t l e the respondent

t o r e l i e f .

is not an easy matter

t o

determine the relevance

of a defence of

laches t o an appl ica t lon

io:.

interim injuncLion under the Act.

the app l i ca t ion

was

f e r a

- l 7 -

f i n a l i n j u n c t i o n ,

would

usua l ly be the case tha t l aches

in the sense o f

mere

delay

( i f

mere

de lay

can

cons t i t u t e l aches ) ,

o r

de l ay su f f i c i en t

t o

cons t i t u t e i n equ i ty an equ i t ab le r e l ease

o r abandonment o f

the claim,

would

rarely d i s e n t i t l e an appl icant

t o re l ie f under

s.80.

Even

where

the l aches cons i s t s

o f

delay

which

has led the respondent

t o a l t e r his

p o s i t i o n t o h i s

de t r iment in re l rance

on the non-enforceuient

o f t he Act,

t he

appl icant will

not automatically be precluded

from

the ln junc t lon

he seeks. Because of the

publ

interest

involved,

the

Court

will

slower

t o w i thho ld r e l i e f t han

would an equlty court

a s u i t the Privy Council

involv ing only ind iv idua l in te res t s .

was

s a i d by

i n Associated Mine ra l s Consolidated Limited v.

IfvonR Shi re Counci l (1974) 29 L.G.R.A.

323 at p.334:-

"The

in ju ry t o a

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t

denlax

r e l l e 1 ,

i t s exbent

and

degree

o€

i r re rne6lab i l i ty ,

must be

weighed aga ins t ally l o s s which the defendafit

may have

suskained by

the F la in t i f f s t and ing

by while the

defendant

lncurs expense

o r ,

such i s the case,

misleading

the defendant

111-to t h l n k i n g t h a t

i t s

a c t i v l t l c s were

o r Is70uld

be pernli-cted".

Thus the effeci ;

laches wlll

d i f f e r f rom case t o case and will

depend

on f a c t o r s whlch m11

i nc lude the iden t i ty

the appl icant

and the nature OP his claim, the nature

of the delay

and o f

the pre judice

it caused t o the respondent,

and the na ture

the publ ic in te res t

question.

IVhere

the app l i ca t ion

i s f o r an inter im

inJunction,

the

Court

v1111 no

doubt be prepared t o giT.re

a g rea t e r

degree of weight bo a

deEence 01

l aches ,

especial-ly i f the

delay has caused the respondent

t o a l k e r h i s

p o s l t i o n

h i s

- 18 -

detriment.

T h l s , however, will

alvays depend

the

Circumstances

t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

and

the degree

o f

public

in te res t Involved .

O f course i n equl ty ,

an applicant

f o r an ln t e r locu to ry

in junc t ion seeks u rgen t r e l i e f , t he app l l ca t iop

must be brought

I '

promptly

and

mere delay can bar Lhe appl . icantPi clalm.

This case

however

is brought solely

for t h e protection of

the pub l i c

i n t e r e s t .

Even il" the evidence were

such

that a case of

laches

I 1

could be

made aga ins t Ibk.

Par i sh ,

that circurnstance would

no t

weigh heavily

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

the

inJunct ion.

In fac t , however,

1-C i s the

concatenatlon

symbols,

n m e s and photographs i n the

brochure

Exhibi t

and

i n the te lev ls ion adver t i sements uh ich

Yr.

Parlsh complains

, I

; :

has a tendency t o mislead or deceive. Although

it vasw11

publ ic lsed months before the appl lca t ion

was

brought tha-t

Er.

Packer

or J.P. would be s taging

Sport Pty. Llmited

(now Vorld

Series Cricket Pty. Limtsr2.j

a s e r i e s o f

"Super Testsft i n which an llAuustrallan

team" would be competlng, nevertheless

I am

s a t i s f i e d tha t t h e

respondent moved promptly on t h e f i r s t material t h a t might

contravene ss .52

and 53( c ) .

On the

balance

convenience

it ought t o

be noticed that

Fr.

Par ish does not a l lege tha t he ought no t

t o have been required

t o furnish an undertaking

as t o damages.

Nor

did

the appe l l an t a t t ack the va lue o f t ha t

undertaking

t h e ground his personal capacity about vhose

tha t

Mr.

Par i sh 1 s a

p r iva t e c i t i zen appea r ing in

means

t o s a t i s f y t h e u n d e r t a k i n g

there appears undertaking on the ground

to be

ev.ldence.

The

appel lan t

d id

a t t a c k t h e

that the terms

i n which the orders

were

made

rendcrcd i t imposs ib l e

to en fo rce

the udc r t ak lng .

A s

the

- 19 -

l	1 .
!

court considers

that

the o rde r s r equ i r e

amendment i n any event,

it is not necessary

t o d e a l f u r t h e r

with that

submission.

When

looking to the balance

o f

convenlence

where

t h e r e i s a pr ima facie case

made

ou t by

the app l i can t

t h a t t h e

consumer

pro tec t ion provis ions

o f

t h e

Act have been

contraveneds

i- t is necessary to look ,

t h e one hand,

t o t h e

poss ib le damage t o consunlers

-chat

would

f l o v from a r e f u s a l o f

t h e interlocutory

in junc t ion ,

and

t h e o t h e r , t o

the damage

t h a t would

f l o v t o the

a d v e r t i s e r If

t he in junc t ion

is granted

but no t

made

perpe tua l

a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g .

T h l s i s a

f a r m r e

d i f f i c u l t t a s k	than	weighing	two	p r l v a t e l n t e r e s t s a g a i n s t e a c h
other .

BePore

the learned Judge

below,

t h e a p p e l l a l t

adduced evldence

t h a t i t had made arrangements for obtaining

tune

f o r a d v e r t i s i n g

i t s s e r i e s on

te lev is ion ,

and

that

progrmux

advertising

had

been

p lanned for the ava i lab lc t ime s lo ts .

The

t r i a l

Judge

d ld

not deal with this evidence, perhaps because

considered that it

was

not necessary to consider the balance

of convenience. appel lan t will

Accepting

that

evldence,

it appears tha t t h e

have

su..Uered

some

i n j u r y which cannot be adequately

compensated by the undertaking for

damages,

i f a t the f i n a l

hear ing ,

the

in junc t ions a re

re fused .

the other

hand,

i f

the conduct

i s found to contravene

ss.52

o r 53( c ) , -the damage

t o 'the

public caused

the r e fusa l

t he In t e r im re l i e1

wou1.d

impo,ss ible to calculate

o r redress .

- 20 -

Although the appellant has

made

arrangements

f o r adve r t i s ing on t e l ev i s ion ,

it would

seem

that it could

s u b s t i t u t e

f o r

any

advertisement wlnch has been prepared

wh.Jhlch

mighk

inf r inge the order

o f

t he

C o u r t ,

advertisements which

do make and the c r i cke t

any

necessary d is t inc t ion

between the

* i a t e r i a l adve r t i s ed

matches organised

by o r sponsored o r approved by

the Australian Crlcket Board.

That

i s ,

the

l o s s caused

t o the appel lant

i f

t he in t e r im mjunc t ion

is not made

perpe tua l

upon the be adequately compensated

f lna l de te rmina t ion

of the matter, though

it may

;lot

f o r

t h e u n d e r t a h n g a s

t o d m . a p s ,

will not be wholly something which tilts the balance of convenience i n h v o u r of

irreparable.

Further,

unless

thers

the appel lan t ,

is usual ly proper

t o main ta in the s ta tus

quo,

i n t h i s case,

en jo inmg the appel lan t

€rom

commencing

thls

new course o f conduct that	is al leged ko be a breach o f ss.52
and 53(c).

The

appellant submitted that

i f

the case vas

a proper

one

f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f ,

tile

orders made

below should

not be allowsd

t o stand rn thout amendment.

I propose

the

subs t i t u t ion o f new

orders for those

made

below and

not

f m d

n e c e s s a r y t o d e a l i n

any

d e t a i l with

the c r i t i c i sms

made

I n

r e l a t l o n t o khose orders .

It should

mentioned

however,

t h a t

one

of the orders made restrained conduct that

was misleading or

deceptive and another two restrained the use of

cer ta in express ions

Itin such

a way a s t o be misleading

o r deceptive" or Itin such

a way

as to mis lead

or deceivetf . In

view,

it is of ten undesirable

t o €rame

in t e r locu to ry

orders i n such

way

a s t o r a i s e t h e v e r y

- 21 -

1ssu.es that r n l l fall t o be declded rit

t h e 'hearing.

If t h e

conduct

i s a g a i n c a l l e d i n q u e s t i o n ,

tu11

usual ly not be

possible to determule,

contempt appllcation, whether

o r

no t the in te r locutory order has been inf r inged

(Australian

Consoljdated Press Limited

NorEan a Anor. (7.965) 112 C.L.R.

483) .

l eav ing tha t ques t ion

t o the f ina l . hear i l ig ,

there

will

be a enjoined. will, on

f a l l u r e t o

meet

the n e e d f o r u r g e n t r e l l e f ,

and

t h e p a r t y

the f ina l hea r ing , be

put

a t risk

not on ly

f i n a l i n j u n c Lion

but

a lso of belng

i n contempt. That

i s n o t

purpose which

in te r locutory order

1 s meant

to se rve .

propose that the orders nade

his Honour

be set damages

as ide. SubJect

appropriate

undertaking

as t o

being @veri by Pir.

Par i sh ,

I propose tha t an in te r im

in junc t lon

granted pending the determlnation of

th i s

matter

o r €u r the r o rde r r e s t r a in ing

World

Series Cricket Pty. Llmited

from engaging

in the fo l lowing conduc t i n t r ade

o r

comnlerce

Re€erring to cricket matches organised by

as Tes ts or

Tes t Ser ies

o r Super Tests without c lear ly

d i s t ingulshlng

those matches

$ram the matches control led vhol ly

or i n p a r t

the Aus t rz l lan Cr icke t

Board

the In te rna t iona l Cr icke t

Conference.

Referring to any

tealn of

c r i c k e t p l a y e r s

i n

cr icket matches

organlsed by it between Australlanand

West Indlan p layers

a s t he Aus t r a l i an

team

o r a s Australia

wi thout c lear ly

d i s t m g u i s h i n g t h a t

team

from

any

team

se l ec t ed o r con t ro l l ed

the Aus t r a l i an .Criclce t

Board.

propose tha t the cos ts

os'

the proceedings

below

and

of t h i s a p p e a l

c o s t s i n the cause.

I propose t h Y t

l i be rby

r e s e r v e d t o e i t h e r p a r t y t o a p p l y

tiro

days

no-bee.

, -

- . .

. . - .

. .

- 22 -

.- .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF	AUSTl?ALIA	)
)

IIEW SOUTH WALES . DISTRICT	.	-	. .	REGISTRY -	)	N O G-72	of 1 9 7 7
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

OM APPI?.N,

PROM

SINGLE J U D G E OF

THE FEDE1:AL

COUET

O F

X J S T R U I A

I N THE K..TTER of THE TRADE PPJCTICE,

ACT,	1 9 7 4	*
*

Between :

WORLD SERlES CRICKET PTY. LIMITED ,

Appellant

(Respondent)

And

ROBERT JNlES PARJSH

Respondent

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FRANK1 J. :

This i s an appea l by World

S e r i e s

C r i c k e t

P t y .

L td .

( t h e a p p e l l a n t )

against

i n t e r i m

i n j u n c t i o n g r a n t e d b y

s ing le

Judge

t h i s c o u r t

o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

Kr.

Robert

J ames

Pa r i sh ,

t he

r e sponden t

he re in .

Mr.

P a r i s h

i s

the

chalrman

t h e

Austral ian

Cr i cke t Board bu t t he p roceed ings

were

brought

h i s own

beha l f and no t

b e h a l f

the Board.

The appellant is a company o rgan i sed t o promote

i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i c k e t m a t c h e s , t h e

first

which a re

t o

t a k e

p l a c e

du r ing

t h e f o r t h c o m m g c r i c k e t s e a s o n

i n

A u s t r a l i a .

S i n c e t h i s a p p e a l

i n r e l a t ion

t o

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

p roceedmgs

no t

propose

t o d e a l

i n g r e a t d e t a i l u i t h t h e e v i d e n c e .

It appea r s

tha t

t h e f i rs t announcement

t h e p r e s s

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

vas

p r o m o t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l

cr icket

a p p e a r e d e a r l y

i n May

1 9 7 7 a n d t h e r e

was

c o n s i d e r a b l e

amount

publicity

i n t h e media

d i r e c t e d

t o t h e matter

d i s p u t e s ,

o r

l i k e l y d i s p a t c s

,b,emeen

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

c o n d u c t j n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i c k e t

and

t o t h e p o s i t i o n

p l a y e r s

r r h o

m i g h t w i s h t o p a r t i c i p a t e ,

n o t

o n l y

i n

t h e

games

-2-

.-- .

promoted by the appe l l an t , bu t a l so

games

a r ranged

t h o s e who

had

previously

a r ranged In t e rna , t l ona l

crlcket.

The

l ea rned Judge

made

t h e f o l l o m n g o r d e r s : -

"THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

company

b e r e s t r a h e d

f rom engag ing in the fo l lowing conduc t

Any

c o n d u c t

t h a t

is mls l cad ing or d e c e p t i v e o r

i s

1.ikely

t o mis l ead

dece ive .

P u b l i s h i n g

c a u s i n g

t o

b e p u b l i s h e d

a n y

f u r t h e r

a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n t h e

form

t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t b e i n g

e x h i b i t

"B".

3 .

Represen t ing

expres s ly

o r

i m p l i c a t i o n

t h a t a n y c r l c k e t

matches organised by

i r

have the sponsor sh ip o r approva l

o r

a n y a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h t h e A u s t r a l i a n C r i c k e t

Board

o r

t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r l c k e t C o n f e r e n c e .

4 .

R e f e r r i n g

i n such

way

t o b e m i s l e a d i n g

or d e c e p t i v e

. t o any c r i cke t ma tches o rgan i sed

i t as

"Tests" or

"Test

Series" or "Super Tests".

R e f e r r i n g

t o

a n y

teams

c r i c k e t p l a y e r s

i n c r i c k e t m a t c h e s

organised by

"The

A u s t r a l i a n Team"

o r " A u s t r a l i a "

any

slmilar

e x p r e s s i o n i n s u c h

way

as t o m i s l e a d

dece ive . I'

It was conceded

t h a t t h e f a i l u r e

t o limit

t h e o r d e r s

i n time

was

a c c i d e n t a l

s l i p o r omission.

The

appel

lant

based

i t s

appea l on

three grounds ,

f irst ,

t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

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

which

t h e c o u r t s h o u l d b e g u i d e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f

i t s

d i s c r e t i o n a r y

power

under

8 0 ( 2 ) o f

t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s

Act

1 9 7 4 ,

s econd ly ,

t h e l e a r n e d

JudEe made

v a r i o u s errors of

law

and

f a c t and

t h i r d l y , t h a t t h e

form

somc

the

o r d e r s made

vas

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

t h e c a s e .

The proceedings were based on S. 52 and S. 53 (c ) of t h e ,

A c t and Mr.	Par i sh	had	sought	an	i n t e r i m	i n j u n c t i o n	t l l c	I
I

- 7-

provis ions of

s.80

OJ? I;he Act pendmg the determination

o€

t h e

appl ica t lon €or

a permmcnt injunctlon.

Section 80(1)

(c )

o f

tilc

Act

provldes ' khat

"any

o t h e r ~ ) W S U I I "

may

apply f o r an

in Junc t ion r e s t r a in ing

a person from engagmg

i n .

conduct tha t c o n s t l t u t e s o r would

constitute

contravention of

S . 52 o r S . 53(c) .

It vas cornnon ground that no quest ion arose

to the right

the respondent to

commence

the proceedmgs.

A n advertisement (Exhibit

B) by the appe l l an t

was

published

fou r page

in se r t ( " the b rochureT1) in

pub l i ca t ion

'!The Australian Women's WeeklyI1 on o r about the 21s t September

1977. This brochure

described

the

crlcket

matches

staged

the appe l l an t

"Super Tests '! , played under Vest

Match

condi t ions ' l , re fe r red to

team

Aus t ra l lan p layers

"The

Aus t ra l ian zeanill o r

l lAustral ia" and

shoved

p i c t u r e s of

p layers

action wearing caps

5s worn by players playing

i n the past i n

t e s t matches

f o r Australia,

England o r the Vest

Indies .

t h e

22nd	Sep te~be r the r e sponden t ob ta lned an o rde r n i s i r e tu rnab le

the next day,

and

was

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

mjunc t ion was granted on the 30th September

1977.

The

appel lan t a t tacked the

first

o r d e r i n p a r t i c u l a r

upon

t h e

ground

tha t

was

no t r e s t r l c t ed to " in t r ade

o r

cormnerce".

S imi l a r c r i t i c i sm

'is

a l so r e l evan t

i n considering orders

4 , and

5. The following passage

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

t h e

In the learned Judge's reasons

f o r judgment:

"I am

of t h e v i e v

that such brochure

would mlslead a significant

sec t ion

t h e p u b l i c i n t o

whose

hands

c a n e I n t o t h i s e r r o r

that

"Super Tests'' were

tes t s organised

the Aus t ra l lan Cr icke t

Board.

It was argued that the

learned

t r i a l Judge

had

approached

the matter under considerat ion

making

€inal €indings

€act

and

not applymg the appropr~a te d i scre t j onary cons idera t ions .

Under

S . RO( 2)

t h e c o u r t

may

grant an inter im injunct lon

were

i n

i t s opinion it

d e s i r a b l e t o

so.

I - .

The

p r lnc ip l e s t o

be appl.led where

lnterlocu tory inJulictl ons

a re sough t a re se t ou t

i.n

Beecham

Grour,

v..

Br i s to l Labora tor les

PLy. L t d . (1968) 118 C.L.R.

618.

Thls

case

was

r e f e r r e d t o by

S-tephen J.,	i n F l r t h I n d u s t r i e s	Ltd.	v.	Polyglass Enpnee r inq
P-ty. Ltd.	(1975) 132 C.L.R. 489.

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

i n

Beecham

Group

Br is to l Labora tor ies P ty .

L td . ,

supra,

were

applicable

to the proceedings before the learned Judge

and

before

gran t ing

lnter im injunct lon he had to be

satisfied

t h a t

prima facie case

had

been

made out.

I t was also submitted by the

appel lan t tha t the learned Judge

had

not properly considere$ the

various ques t lons

which a r i se under

S . 80( 2)

and

(4) .

One of

t he ma t t e r s r e l i ed

upon was

t h a t t h e r e

had been

some

evidence

tha t t he b rochure

was

n o t t o

be repeated

but that the judge,

wh i l s t no t r e j ec t ing

t h i s evidence, formed

conclusion not

open

t o him.

I do not

consider

thls t o be so .

Section

80(4)

permlts

the Court

I f

it th inks it d e s i r a b l e t o

s o , t o gr'ant

. interim injunction whether

or n o t it appears CO t h e Couri; that t h e

person sought to be restrained intends to engage agaip,

o r

continue t o engage

i n conduct cont ra ry to

S . 52 o r s .53(c)

and

indeed,

i n the case

in t e r im in junc t ion

S . 80(5) permits

th is whether

o r n o t t h e r e is an imminent danger

o f substantlal

damage t o any person.

The learned Judge also had before

him

c e r t a i n television

advertisements which the appellant

was

considering it might use.

I t u r n now t o consider the

f o r m of

the orders

made.

Orders 1,

and 5 a r e n o t l i m i t e d

-to conduct

i n t r a d e o r

commerce.

Because of t%, and because H i s Honour made what

appears

t o be

€ h a 1 f inding

o f

f a c t ig

r e l a t ion to the b rochure ,

cons ider

tha t

the

appel lank

has

made

ou t

s u l f i c i e n t c a s e

t o

warrant

the

in te rvcnt jon

o f tlns Court.

In performing i t s t a sk

th i s Court

i s e n t i t l c d t o e x e r c i s e t h e

powers

conferred

. - _. - - - - . .- .

- .

. .

-5-

under ss. 27 and 28 of the Federal Court

of Australia ActI and

I --

l;he Court should

examine the mater la1 before the

learned Judge

and make such orders as i n all the 'circumstances It .thinlrs

des i rab le .

th ink

thal;

the Court, In decidlng whether

o r no t

prima

facie case has been

made

ou t ,

i s requi red t o examine

the

major question whether

s i g n i f l c a n t number

o f t he r e l evan t

po ten t i a l pu rchase r s o f t i cke t s

would be

l i k e l y t o

be deceived

o r misled by an advertisement on t e l ev i s ion

o r elsewhere of

the respondent into considering

tha t

cr icket matches cal led "Tescs

o r IISuper Tests'l came from

the

same people as had organlsed

c r i c k e t t e s t s i n

the past , whether or not the relevant

PO t s n t l s i

purchasers

knew r h o had organised these previous criclre

matches.

T h i s

is s o p a r t i c u l a p l y

(1) where

t h e use

assoc ia ted

with

o t h e r m a t e r l a l l i k e l y t o p o i n t i n t h e

s m e

d i r e c t i o n ,

and

(2)

i n

the absence of

any

su f f i c i en t d i s t i ngu i shmg ma t t e r

appearing a t t h e same time.

i s

c l e a r

t ha t

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e

i s no need

t o

show

any

goodwill

o r p rop r i e to ry ln t e re s t

i n the app l i can t

f o r

an in junc t ion s lnce the l eg i s l a t ion

i s

f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f

consumers.

Because

t he f ind lngs

t ha t I have already

made

do not consider thaL

it is necessa ry in

tnese in t e r locu to ry

proceedlngs

t o have regard to the e f fec t

any

advertisements en

persons who

a r e no

r e l evan t t h m as viewers

t e l e v l s i o n .

I pass now t o consider whether

a prlma facie case

has

been made out. Without

considering

the matter as one would if one

were

making

€ ina l o rde r ,

on the evidence before the learned

Judge, I consider t h a t a prlma fac i e case

has been made o u t that

t he b rochure wu ld

l i k e l y t o - d e c e i v e o r mislead

a t lear,L

s u f f i c i e n t number

o f

po ten t ia l purchasers

t i c k e t s .

Whilst

may

s a d tha t t he ph rase

llSuper Testsll

had no I;,

a t t h e d a t e

-6-

the advertlsement,

any

posi t ive associat ion with the prewous

I -.

organisers of

t e s t matches, It does seem that su€flcient people

would be

l l l ce ly to

be misled into thinlciljg

that "Super Tests"

were

matches developed

by the organisers

what

they had i r e v i o u s l y

known as t e s t matches.

In argument

before

us,

t he appe l l an t

sough t t o r e ly on the pub l i c i ty

Crom

which,

a l leged ,

a l l

re levant pokent ia l customers

would have

l e a r r t that t h e r e was no

connection between those organlsing

IISuper

Tests" and those

>::h0

had

i n the pas t o rganised tes t s .

think

t ha t

s o fa r as

concerns I '

a prima

f a c i e c a s e ,

i s ll lcely that

s u f f i c i e n t s e c t i o n

t he po ten t i a l pu rchase r s

t i c k e t s would

not

draw

t h i s d i s t l n c t i o

and

would

l l k e l y

to be misled

01-

?.eceived.

Only

t h i s y e a r

the Aus t ra l ian publ ic has been exposed to

c r i cke t even t ca l l ed

t h e

!'Centenary Test".

The words

A u s t r a l i a *

and Australian

team

a r e words of

very general import but

consider tha t a pr lma facie case

has

been made

out in the case

o€ a match organised

the

appel lan t ,

and

r e f e r r e d t o as

belng between Australia and

the

Vest

Indies,

€or r equ i r ing the

team described as the Aus t ra l ian

Team

o r

A u s t r a l l a , t o

c l ea r ly d i s t ingu l shed

from

team

se l ec t ed o r

cont ro l led

by It is necessary t o conslder such matches because

the Aus t ra l lan Cr icke t

Board.

It is

c l e a r from what appears i n the brochure

and elsewhere i n t h e

evidence,

tha-t the appellant has organised such matches

€or

t h e

coming

cr icket

season.

I do not consider

it necessary

hare

regard to the posi t ion of matches betxeen an Austral ian

team and

team

of p layers f r o m any other country because

none

are planned

t h e a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e

coming

crlclcet

season.

Matches

hetwen

a team of Aus t ra l ian p layers

and players represent ing "The World'!

a r e i n a

dlfferent category because

n o t s a t i s f i e d

tha t the re

i s

suf f ic len t

ev ldence

tha t any

such

matches

would

assoclated

- 5 f ' -

with matches

i n whhlch

t h e team

of Aus t ra l lan p layers

were

selec tcd,

o r

cont ro l led by

the Aus t ra l lan Cr icke t

Board.

I pass now

t o consider the quesLiun w 1 v h d L r e l i e € ,

i f any,

should be granted.

It was

put

us t h a t on the balance

of convenience relief should not

granted because

OP i t s e f f e c t

the adve r t i s ing

o f

t h e a p p e l l a n t . I n

opinion,

in te r im

injunct ion appropriately f ramed

would

affect--the legit imate

adver t i s ing of the appel lan t reasonably descr ib ing

i n

€air

manner

t h e a c t i v i t i e s i n

whlch

proposed t o engage.

Considerable

argument

took place before

the ques t lon

of whether

o r

not the doctr ine of laches appl ied to inter im

r e l i e f

i n respect of appl icat ions under

s.80

based

condcct

-to which

s.52

o r s .53(c) appl ied. Nat ters

which

would

support

defence of laches

seem

appropriate for examinat lon in declding

whether

i s d e s i r a b l e t o g r a n t

interim

in junc t ion ,

but

no t cons ide r t ha t s ince the func t ion

t h i s l e g i s l a t l o n

t h e

p ro tec t lon

of consumers, one should necessarily give effecz

i o

the defence unless

i s c l e a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o

so.

Sect ion

80 ( l ) ( c ) pe rmi t s

wide

var ie ty of people to take proceedings

and

i s d i f f i c u l t t o a p p l y t h e

same

p r i n c i p l e s

or?e

appl ies

i n

p r i v a t e litigation,

where

one

party has changed

h is p o s i t i o n

because

the

con&ct

the

other

party.

These

proceedings

have a measure of urgency and a r e in a comparatlvely ne\%:

f l e l d

of law i n fiuustralia and I do not th lnk

it appropriate i n t h i s

Judgment t o s a y more than 1s necessary.

I cons ider

tha t

it is

s u f l i c l e n t t o say that In the matter before

I do no t

consider t h a t ,

the evidence,

any conduct of Mr.

Par i sh o r

lack of act ion

hlm

i n f a i l l n g t o seek

r e l i e f e a r l i e r

o r

otherwise, affords

defence

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

appl icat ion.

I t is re l evan t t o note tha t

the brochure

vas

Lhe

flrst advertisement made

the

appel lan t for the purpose

of'

-8-

reaching

members

o f

the general publ ic .

I now pass t o cons ide r the appropriate Zorm of orders.

The

applicant assured

the

C m r t that

the

advertlsenlent

i n t h e form o€ Exhiblt I1Bl1 would no t be repeated and I would

tl&

assurance.

I do not th lnk

Order 3 is appropriate because

I consider

that,

the mater la l be lore the Cour t , the

' l . .

.have

t'ne

sponsorship o r approval o r any affiliation wi th the

Australian

Cricket

Board

o r the Internatlonal Cricket Conferenceu1 are

inappropr i a t e t o desc r ibe the r e l a t ionsh ip

between previously

knom cr icke t tes t matches

and

the Aus t ra l iaa Cr icke t

Boarfi

the In te rna t iona l Cr icke t

Con€erence

and,

i n any

event,

such

o r d e r

3 i s t o o u n c e r t a m t o

be desirable.

Lhout

wi sh ing to l ay

down

any

p r i n c i p l e s ,

cons ide r t ha t

i s undesirable

in t h i s c a s e

t o

g ran t an order based	on s .53(c) , s ince	an order based	on s.52 1 s
adequate.

propose tha t the ordzrs

made

H i s Honour

s e t a s i d e

and that, s u b j e c t t o

an appropriate undertaBlng

as t o dam,,

being given

by I W .

Par ish, an lnter lm injunc t lon

granted ~ E ~ X ~ J E ;

the determinat ion

t h i s m a t t e r ,

o r fu r the r o rde r r e s t r a ln ing

World Series Cricket Pty. Llni ted

from engaging i n t h e following

conduct

I n t r a d e

o r commerce.

(1)

Re€errjn& t o cricket

matches

organised

it as T e s k o r

Tes t Ser ies

o r

Super Tests without c lear ly dls t inguishinc

those matches

from the matches controlled wholly

o r i n p a r t

t h e kustrallan Cricket

Board

o r

t he In t e rna t iona l

Cricket

Conference.

(2)

Referring -to

any

tern

c r icke t

p layers

c r ickec

matches

organised by i t between Australian

and west Indian players

as the Austral ian

team o r as Australip wl

thout c lear ly

d is t inguish ing the

team

from any

team

se l ec t ed o r

con t ro l l ed by

t h e Aus Lrallan

Cricket

Board.

These follow t h e usual form oQ o r d e r i n

a passing o f f

ac t ion where

the vo rd to

pro tec ted 1 s one

t o which

the

p l a in lx f f has

exc lus ive r lgh t

h-.:;

which has achieved a

secondary meanlng

s l g n i f i c a n t s e c t i o n

o f

t h e r e l e v a n t

purchasing public

(Kerly's, "Law o f Trade I4arlrs and Trade Names",

10th ed.

pages

4k2-444).

a l s o note tha t ,

i n genera l ,

the

\.lords

Ilwithout

clearly distinguishingll have been considered

s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e c i s e

and

that

it has

been considered

undesirable

f o r such an o r d e r t o

i n t o d e t a i l .

It has been

s a i d tha t It

i s ce r t a in ly no t t he bus iness

t h e Court

t o g ive

person

i n s t r u c t i o n s o r h i n t s as t o how

near the

wind

can

sa i l .

would

o rde r t he cos t s

the proceedlngs before the

s i n g l e Judge

and of t h i s a p p e a l

c o s t s i n

the cause,

I would

a l s o

r e se rve l i be r ty to e i the r pa r ty to app ly

two

day ' s

no t ice .

RETTWEN :

WORLD SERIES CRICRET

PTY.

LlfIITED

Appel lant

(Respondent)

Am :

ROBEET JAWS PARISII

Respondent

(Appl icant )

JUDGhIENT

cricket

b i b l e , c o n t a i n s t h e r e v e l a t i o n t h a t t h e

first

Test

Match

between England and

Aus t ra l ia

was

p layed in Eng land

l n

1880.

T h e r e s i t e r ,

teams

r e p r e s e n t i n g

t h e

two

c o u n t r i e s p l 2 y c C

Test Matches

from

time

t o time.

I n

1 8 9 9 ,

t h e

Almanac assures

u s ,

s ing le Se lec t ion Commi t t ee

first

p i c k e d t h e E n g l i s h

Test

team, and In 1909 the Imper i a l Cr i cke t ConIe rence

1905 an Aus t ra l ian Board of Cont ro l

was

s e t

up.

was

€armed

i n

London

and

i t was

c o n s t i t u t e d by

the

M.C.C. ,

t h e A u s t r a l i a n B o a r d

Control

and

t h e South

A€rican C r i c k e t

A s s o c l a t i o n .

Th?

rule

book

the

Conference

(now

known

t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r L c k e r

C o n f e r e n c e ) n o t e s

t h a t

Cricket

A s s o c i a t i o n s of

o t h e r

coun t r i e s

have become

members

s i n c e 1909,

and that South Africa ceased

t o be a member

1961.

Teams,

s e l e c t e d Lo r e p r e s e n t

m a j o r

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

matches

which

h a v e h i t h e r t o b e e n c o n t r o l l e d

the

I n t e r n a t i o n a :

have b e e n two examples O C t h e u s e , 111 1906, 01 t h e word "Tests"

d e s c r i b e d

"'l'ests".

The

Oxford

dlct ional-y

g ~ v e s

L 0

d e s c r i b e c r i c l r e t m a t c h e s .

I n Flay

1977,

a T e s t S e r i e s

c"s

bemg p l a y e d

Englmd be announcement was made t h a t Hr

tween

England

and

Aus t ra l ia . Paclccr o r a company w i t h \vhj ch

that month, an

was

a s s o c i a t e d h a d s e c u r e d , b y c o n t r a c t ,

the

s e r v i c e s

some

t h e w o r l d ' s l e a d m g p l a y e r s , a n d

that

i t

was

i n t e n d e d

t o promote

ser ies 01 matches

t o b e p l a y e d

i n A u s t r a l i a

t h e

1977-7s

season.

The

ser ies ,

o r p a r t

OP i t , was

i n t e n d e d t o be

t e l e v i s e d

t h e

C h a n n e l

aeti:.ork.

The

important

matches

t h e series were

d e s c r i b e d i n p r e s s

statements,

r e l e a s e d

111 May

a n d

s u b s e a u e n t l y ,

"Tests"

o r

"Super t e s t s " .

Thc

Appell-ant is a company of mhich I l r Packe r is a d i r e c t o r 2nd

t h e p r o m o t e r

the

matches .

I t

has

adop ted

a iogo and

uses

t h e p h r a s e

"T'lorld

S e r i e s C r i c k e t "

aid i n its

promotion

the ma tches .

I t

pub l i shed an adve r t i s emen t

(Exh ib i t

R )

f o r

d i s t r i b u t i o n m i t h t h e i s s u e

The

A u s t r a l i a n

TVomen's

I'kelcly

da ted 2Sth September , 1977 conta in ing photos of

some

the

p laye r s whose se rv ices had been secu red and

some

a d v e r t i s i n g

material

whlch was

i n t e n d e d t o

commend t h e matches

t o t h e

Aus t r a l i an

p u b l i c

who

m i g h t r e a d t h e

magazine:

22nd September , 1977

the Respondent

obtained

an o r d e r , c a l l i n g s i n g l e J u d g e

upon

t h e A p p e l l a n t

t o show

cause

b e f o r e

t h i s C o u r t

the

I o l l o w i n g d a y ,

why

shoulcl

n o t b e r e s t r a i n e d

from

e n g a g i n g i n c e r t a i n c o n d u c t a l l e g e d

t o b e

i n

c o n t r a v e n t i o n

s s . 5 2 a n d 5 3 ( c ) o f t h e T r a d e

P r a c t i c e s - Act,

1974.

After

h e a r i n g on

23rd ,

2Gth

and

27th

Septembcr , 1977

' a p p l i c a t i o n € o r

i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n ,

t h e

learned

Judge

made

a n o r d c r r e s t r a l n ~ . n g t h e A p p e l l a n t

. . ./3.

, S -

, 1 .

Prom

engaging

111

t h e I o l l o w i n g c o n d u c t

"S.

Any

c o n d u c t

h a t

is m i s l e a d i n g o r

d e c e p t i v e

o r

i s

l i k e l y t o m i s l e a d

d e c e i v e .

P u b l i s h i n g

c a u s i n g t o b e

p ~ b l i s h e d any

f u r t h e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t

i n the

form

o f t h e

a d v e r t i s e m e n t b e i n g e x h i b i t

"B".

3 .

Represent ing

e?:pressly

or by

imp l i ca t ion

t h a t any

c r l c k c t m a t c h e s

organised

h a v e t h c

sponsorshlp

o r a p p r o v a l

any

a f f i l i a t l o n 1~~2th

e A u s t r a l i a n C r i c k e t

Board

o r

t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i c k e t

Conference.

4 .

R e f e r r i n g

i n

s u c h

a may

as t o

b e

m i s l e a d i n g

d e c e p t i v e t o a n y c r i c k e t

matches organised by

i t

"Tes ts"

"Test

Series" o r "Super

T e s t s " .

Referrj-ng t o any

teams of

cricket p l a y e r s

i n cricket matches organ?sed by

i t as

"The

A u s t r a l i a n

Team"

o r

" A u s t r a l i a "

o r

a n y similar e s p r e s s l o n in

such a way

as t o

m l s l e a d 01'

dece ive . "

I t

common

g r o u n d t h a t t h e o r d e r

i n t e n d e d t o

l imi - t ed

i n p o i n t

time

and ,

i f

t h a t i n t e n t i o n s h o u l d n o t a l r e a d y

clear from t h e terms

t h e o r d e r

as drawn,

i t s h o u l d b e

amended.

The

Appe l l an t

nom

s e e k s

o r d e r

t h a t

the o r d e r

o f

t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e b e

se t

a s i d e .

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

t h e R e s p o n d e n t

i n

t h i s a p p e a l ,

the cha i rman o f

t he

Aus t r a l i an Cr i cke t Board , wh ich

assume

t o b e t h e s u c c e s s o r

i n f u n c t i o n of

tbe Aus t r a l i an Board

Con t ro l .

IIe

does n o t

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

t h e Board,

a l t h o u g h t h e

relief

which he

seeks

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

t h e

Board .

Proceedlngs

seeking

an injunction t o secure compliance

w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f

ss. 52

and

53(c)

may

i n s t i t u t e d by any

person under

S . SO( l)

(c), whether

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

has

any

rights 'whlch

might be

a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n d u c t t o

restrained

t h e i n j u n c t i o n , and whether

o r n o t

t h a t person

might

e n t i t l e d t o damages under

S . 82

i f

t h e c o n d u c t s h o u l d

engaged i n .

T h e

a p p l i c a n t

f o r

t h e

i n j u n c t i o n

n o t

r e q u l r e d

. . . /4.

s t a t u t e t o be

the

owner

01 p r o l l e r t y i n - p r o t e c t i o n

rvllich

t h e

1 n J u n c t i o n

s o u g h t .

S . 5 2 ( 1 )

p r o v l d e s

l '

52. (1)

c o r p o r a t i o n

sh:zll

n o t ,

i n

track o r

commerce,

engage

i n c o n d u c t

that

m i s l e a d i n g

or	d c c c p t i v e . "

S . 5 3 ( c ) p r o v i d e s

53.

corpora t ion

shn l .1

no t ,

t r a d e

o r

commerce,

i n c o n n e x i o n w i t h

t h e

supp ly

p o s s i b l e s u p p l y

goods

o r s e r v l c e s or

i n

connexion

with

the promotion by any msans

t h e s u p p l y

o r u s e of

goods

s e r v i c e s -

( a )	. . .
( b )	. . .

( c )

r e p r e s e n t

t h a t

goods

o r

s e r v i c e s

h a v e

sponsor sh ip ,

app rova l ,

pe r fo rmance

character is t lcs ,

a c c e s s o r i e s ,

u s e s

b e n e f l t s

t h e y d o n o t h a v e ; "

Although the conduct which

is p r o s c r l b e d by

s s .52 and

53(c)

i nc ludes conduc t

a k i n d familiar

p a s s i n g - o f 1

cases,

t h o s e s e c t l o n s , a n d

ss.SO(1) ( c ) a n d

are not

w r i t t e n

p a l i m p s e s t

which

t h e t o r t i o u s p r l n c i p l e s

are p e r c e i v e d

t o

be u n d e r l y i n g . i u r n i s h the meaning of

The

o r d i n a r y

canons

s t a t u t o r y

c o n s t r u c t l o l

thcse p r o v i s i o n s .

The conduct

which

founds a

p a s s m g - o f f a c t i o n

may

equal ly €ound

a p roceed ing

for

c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f

s.52

5 3 ( c ) ,

and

pe r son whose

p r o p e r t y

r i g h t s are i n j u r e d may

t h u s have a

cholce

o f

remedy,

b u t t ha t

c o n s e q u e n c e d o e s : n o t r e q u i r e t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s t o b e

s o c o n s t r u e d r e q u i r e t h e s t a t u t o r y

a s

t o conform with

t h e common lam.

Nor does i t

remedies

t o be

moulded

t o a c c o r d

wlth

t h e

rerncdles

v;hich

might

have been obta ined

f rom

a c o u r t of equltp. .

The

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

for

c o n t r a v e n t i o n of

s . 5 2

o r

5 3 ( c )

whether the

conduct complained

a n s w e r s t h e

s t a t u t o r y

d e s c r i p x i o n .

I'lhen

i n j u n c t i o n

sought

t o

r e s t r a i n

c o r p o r a t i o n

Irom

engaging

i n c c n d u c t

certaln

k i n d , t h e i s s u e

is whether conduct

t h a t kind would

ans1,e1

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

i f

the

c o r p o r a t i o n

were

t o e n g a g c

. . /5 .

_ ._ .____

. .

in it. d i s c r e t x o n of

Thc s ta tu tory remedy by .way of i n j u n c t i o n is i n tne

t h e Court - b o t h as t o the making of

i n j u n c t i v e o r d e r a n d

t o i ts

terms.

I n

exercising

its

s t a t u t o r y d i s c r e t i o n , h o n e v e r ,

the Cour t

refers

equitable

p r i n c i p l e s

i f

o n l y

t o e n s u r e

t h a t f a c t o r s

which

are

r e l e v a n t t o

t h e exercjse of

t h e

d j s c r e t i o n

are

no t

omi t t ed

f rom

cons ide ra t ion .

A l though

the

p r i n c i p l e s

e q u i t y d o n o t

mark

t h e

limits

r e l e v a n c y

s o l e l y d e t e r m i n e t h e

e x e r a s e of

t h e

s t a t u t o r y

d i s c r e t i o n ,

t h e y are relevant norms which

may

p r o v i d e assistance i n

l a r g e r

o r smaller measure

a c c o y d i n g t o t h e c l o s e n e s s

the

e q u i t a b l e

a n a l o g u e

t o

t h e c a s e

hand.

When

a p p l i c a n t ,

who

] n i g h t h a v e i l l \ d i e d t h e a u s l l i a r y j u r i s d i c t i o n

e q u i t y

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

u n d e r

t h e

Act

and

a l leges , for example,

c o n t r a v e n t i o n 01

S. 53(c),

and

a p p l i e s

Cor

a n

i n j u n c t i o n u n d e r

S. SO

m e r e l y I n

o r d c r

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

may

b e

determined by

reference

t o t h e same

p r i n c i p l e s as

t h o s e \,vh?ch

would have e q u i t a b l e a n a l o g y

been

appl ied

c o u r t

e q u i t y .

B u t

t h e

inadequa te

when

t h e a p p l i c a n t n e i t h e r

owns

p r o p e r t y

n o r

cha rged wi th

duty

t o enforce compl lance

w i t h

t h e

p r o h i b i t i o n .

T h a t

t h e

p r e s e n t

case.

I t

Conceded t h a t N r Pa r i sh ,

t bough no t su ing

beha l f

t h e

Board,

n e v e r t h e l e s s e n t i t l e d p u r s u a n t t o

S. 8 0 ( l ) ( c ) t o b r i n g p r o c e e d l n g s € o r a n i n j u n c t i o n w h i c h

i n

€ a c t

w o u l d

p r o t e c t

its in t e re s t s .

I n t h e

a b s e n c e

any

p r o p e r t y

i n Lir

P a r i s h , a n d

i n t h e a b s e n c e

any

legal

duty

r e s t i n g u p o n h i m t o

ensure

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

ss. 52

and

53 (c )

are

colnpl ied wi th ,

how

c o u l d h e s e c u r e a n i n J u n c t j

from

c o u r t

e q u i t y ? P e t

t h e s t a t u t e

assumcs

t h a t

there

are

f a c t o r s w h i c h m i g h t w a r r a n t t h e

grant

a n i n j u n c t i o n

. . ./G.

a p p l i c a t i o n .

h i s

What

is tlie

s t a tu to ry

pu rpose

wh ich

map

b e f u l . f i l l e d b y t h e

grant.Lng

o f

i n J u n c t i o n i n

such

case? The purpose

canno t

t o p r e v e n t

t h e a p p l l c n n t

from

b e i n g m i s l e d

d e c e i v e d ,

o r

f r o m b e i n g i n d u c e d t o b e l i e v e

a n u n t r u e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,

f o r

a p p l i c a n t

n e c e s s a r i l y

aware of

the q u a l i t y of

the conduc t

which he

.cornplains.

\‘/hen

ss .52

and

p r e s c r l b e t h a t c o r p o r a t i o n s s l ~ o u l d n o t I n

t r ade and

commerce

engage

i n c o n d u c t t h a t

is m i s l e a d i n g

d e c e p t i v e a n d s h o u l d

n o t

make

false

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ,

t h e

purpose

t h e s t a t u t e

c l e a r l y

t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s

which

mould

b e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d

i f

t h e

impugned conduct

d i d m i s l e a d

d i d d e c e i v e

o r

d i d i n d u c e b e l i e f

I n

f a l s e h o o d .

The

i n t e r e s t s in

q u e s t i o n may

o r may

n o t b e p r o p r i e t a r y a n d

be sho r t - t e rm i n a p p r o p r i a t e cases,

o r long-term.

The i n t e r e s t s of

consumers

and,

compe-citors

i n t h e m a r k e t ,

are

interests o f the re levant Bind.

These

interests

are

r e l e v a n t

€ a c t o r s t o b e w e i g h e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g m h e t h e r

a n

1 n J u n c t j o n

s h o u l d

g r a n t e d

a n d ,

i f

i t

b c

g r a n t e d ,

its terms.

The

re1 evance

t h e f a c t o r s

not dependent upon

the

i n t e re s t s

( I € a n y j

t h e p a r t y

who

i n v o k e s

t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

t h o u g h

t h e m e i g h t

t o

be g i v e n

t o

t h o s e € a c t o r ’ s

map

be.

Much

depends

upon

t h e n a t u r e . o f

t h e

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

i n t e r e s t s

a f f e c t e d b y t h a t c o n d u c t .

t h e p r e s e n t

case,

Parish,

s e e k i n g a n

i n t c r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n ,

was

c o n s t r a i n e d t o show

pr ima

fac1.e

case

( i n t h e s e n s e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e

High

Court

i n Beechxm

Group

L td .

Bristol

L a b o r a t o r i e s

L t d .

(1968) 118 C.L.R.

618

a t p.

622)

t h a t t h e c o n d u c e

which

thc

Appel

lan

proposed

t o engage would contravene

S. 52

o r s .53(c) (Ashbur ton

O j 1 N.L.

v. Alphx

:dinerals R.L. (1971) 123 C.L.13. 614 at p. 627) and

h r t h e r , t h a t

was

d e s i r a b l e t o r e s t r a i n

t h e

Appellant Cron

. .

. / 7 .

the

conduct

I n which

i t was

l i k e l y t h a t , u n l e s s r e s t r a i n c d ,

t he Appe l l an t wou ld engage and to shov p r ima

fac ie

t h a t t h a t

conduct c.ould contravene

S. 52

or S. 5 3 ( c ) .

The re

was

evidence

t o

t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p o s e d

use of

t h e terms

"test" a n d " s u p e r t e s t " t o

-refer t o some of

the

matches

which

i t p r o p o s e d

t o

s p o n s o r .

I n

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t j o n

01 Mr

P a r i s h it was

p u t t o

him and

accepted by

h i m t h a t t h e

Appel lan t had

f o r months

pas t "proposed

t o use

the words

' tests '

and

' supertests '

111 r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e

contests",

t h a t

is,

t h e m a t c h e s ( o r

some

them)

t o b e p r o m o t e d b y t h e

A p p e l l a n t .

E x h i b i t

and

cer ta ln

t e l e v i s i o n

a d v e r t i s i n g

conta ined

e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o

show

t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t w o u l d ,

unless

r e s t r a i n e d , a d v e r t i s e

some

t h e c r i c l t e t m a t c h e s

t o

promoted by

"Super

Tests",

t o d e s c r i b e t h e c o n d i t l o u s

under which those matches would

p l a y e d

" T e s t

Hatch

c o n d i t i o n s " ,

and

t o refer

t o t h e

team

composed

o f A u s t r a l l a n

p l a y e r s

" A u s t r a l i a ' s

team",

o r

" A u s t r a l i a " , a n d

t h a t

i t mould

p u b l i s h p h o t o s o f t h e p l a y e r s w e a r i n g

.daps

o f t h e i r n a t i o i l a l

teams,

and x~ou ld . desc r lbe Clive L loyd ( then

captain

the

West

I n d i e s T e s t

Team) as Capta in of

a West

Indies team t o

p l a y i n a

Super Tes t series.

The re

was

n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t i n t e n d e d

o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y

t o

s ta te

t h a t t h e m a t c h e s t o b e p r o m o t e d

i t mere

sponsored or aoproved

b y

t h e B o a r d

or by

t h e

' I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C r i c k e t

C o n f e r e n c e .

I n d e e d ,

t h e r e

was

cons ide rab le ev idence wh ich po j n t ed

t o

n o t o r i o u s d i s p u t c

he tween

those

bod

ies

and

the Appe l l an t ,

t he

Iormer

condclfllljng.

t h e

l a t t e r

I S proposed matcl~cs

. /8 .

Does

appear pr ima Iacie

that

t h e A]~pell .ant 's

proposed conduct

\vould

contravene

the

r c l e v a n t s t a t u t o r y

provis ions?

Before a s t a t e m m t can l x s a i d t o

be rnislendxng

o r deceptive o r €alselp t o r e p r e s e n t

f a c t ,

i t myst

convey

a meaning conveys 110 meaning

i n c o n s i s t e n t wlth

t h e t r u t h .

statement

wh1.c.11

bu t

t h e t ruth cannot mislead

o r decelve

o r

Ia l se ly

represent ;

a l though

a statement which is l i t e r a l l y

t r u e mzy

never the less convey another mezning

wh1cI1

is untrue,

and

proscribed accordingly

( U . S . -

Barrels

e t c . o f

Vinegar 265 U.S. 436 a t p. 442).

support the

t h i r d , f o u r t h

and

f i f t h p a r t s of

t h e

order made by H i s IIonour ( t o mhi eh I s h a l l refer as though

each par t

were

s epa ra t e o rde r )

it was

inc~mben t

on h l r P'arJsh

t o show res t ra ined,

prima €acle case that the Appellant would, unless

pub l i sh ma te r i a l

represent ing that some cricket matches organized

by it would have

the sponsorship 01- approval 01

o r some

aCPl l la t ion

w l l h

the

Austral ian Crickei

Board

o r

t h e

Internat lonal Cricket Conference

whereas those matches

would

not have that

sponsorship or approval

(Order

3 ) ;

r e f e l - r i n g t o c r i c k e t

matches'

organized

a s "Tests"

o r "Test Series"

o r "Super Tests"

i n

such

c o n t e x t a s t o

make

t h e

re ference unt rue

(Order 4 ) ;

r e f e r r i n g t o teams

cricket matches organized

i t a s "The

Aus t ra l ian Team"

or "Austral ia"

i n such a context as t o make t h e reference untrue

(Order 5 ) .

I can i i n d no evldence, other

t h a n the proposcd use

01 the terms r e f e r r e d t o i n

the fourth and

firth orders,

. . / g .

t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t

proposes

t o pilbllsh

any

mater ia l .

t l1c

k ind

ment ioned

parag raph (a).

I t is true t h a t

T e s t

m n t c h e s

are organized by the Board and

the Con1ercnce,

but that

Iac t would not

n e c e s s ~ r i l y

apprec~.aLcd by the ayerage

r e a d e r

01-

hearer

t o whom

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

d i r e c t e d .

t h e

cog>zoscanti who

a p p r c c l a t e

t h e

c o n n e c t l o n

between

Tests

and

the

named

c o n t r o l l i n g b o d i e s , t h e

d e s c r i p t i o n

a match

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

team as be tween tha t match

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

team would convey

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

or	t e a m a n d a n o f f i c i a l c o n t r o l l i n g b o d y .

The

term

"test"

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

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

may

t h e r e f o r e

Be s a i d t o make promotion of

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

i n connec t ion with

t h e

those matches which

is u n t r u e , and which

arguably

f a l l s

m l t h i n

s . 5 3 ( c ) .

I t

n o t

n e c e s s a r y ,

i n

judgment, so t o d e c i d e .

such a meaning mere conveyed, 11-

would be conveyed

t o a class, t h e overmheliuing majority

whom

would knO\v

t h e d i s p u t e

between

the A p p e l l a n t ,

as promoter

. ,

t h e matches,

and t h e

c o n t r o l l i n g

b o d i e s .

t h e r e were

false

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

S. 5 3 ( c )

few,

i f

any ,

would be deceived

i t , and

it would

liot

be desirable t o

m a k e

a n o r d e r t o

res t ra in

t h e

mak ing

o f such an a l l eged

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

;ending

t h e

t r ia l .

The

A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t t o u p s e t t h e w h o l e

H i s

H o n o u r ' s o r d e r s b y a t t a c k l n g

the

f i n d l n g

that

t h e " b r o c h u r e

would mlsl.ead

s i g n i f i c a n t s e c t i o n

01 t h e p u b l i c

i n t o whose

hands i t came

i n t o t h i s

error

t h a t

' S u p e r T e s t s '

were

tests

orgirnized by

t h e

A u s t r a l i a n

C r l c k e t

B o a r d " .

A l t h o u g h

t h i s

pas sage 1s

e x p r e s s e d as

f i n d l n g on

issue y e t t o be

l i t i g a t e d a t zhc

t r ia l -

and ought

t h a t a c c o u n t

t o be

set

a s i d e

s u c c e s s f u l a t t a c k o n t h a t

passage

does

not

c a r r y

f!. I ' I	i	.	. . /IQ.
J .

I . -

J.U .

the	consequence dcs i rcd .

There remains

t h e q u e s t i o n

v:hether

a prima fac ie

case was shomn t o

s u p p o r t

t h e 1oQrt.h

and

f i f t h o r d e r s .

The

answer

t o t h i s ques t l o n

requlres

c o n s l d e r a t l o n

t h e

c o n n o t a t i o n

t h e

terms

p r o p o s e d t o b e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e

V o r l d S e r i e s C r f c k e t m a t c h e s ,

for

i f

i t

h e l d

a t

t h e

t r l a l

t h a t t h o s e

terms

convey t o reasonable members

t h e p u b l l c

t o whom

t h e m e d i a a d v e r t i s i n g

a d d r e s s e d - a d e s c r i p t l o n

t h e matches o r of

t h e teams

compet ing there in mhich

u n t r u e ,

h I r P a r i s h mill

have established h i s case.

meaning

r e a s o n a b l y a t t r i b u t e d

term

members

t h e p u b l j c

who are not Bnowledgeable

111 c r i c k e t l o r e

is a meanlng \:h1 ch

m u s t

t e s t e d

f o r

i ts

t r u t h

(see

F e d e r a l T r a d e

C o r r n i s s i c ~ n

S t a n d a r d E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y

302

U.S.

112

p .

116.

On 1.k P a r i s h 'S showing of

a prima facie case, t h e

term

"Test"

d e s c r i b e s a

crlclret match

which

d i s t i n g u l s h e d

number

features

which

are

b o t h u n i q u e a n d r e l a t e d .

The unique

f ea tu res are

s a i d t o i n c l u d e

a match which

played between

teams

w h i c h r e p r e s e n t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

c o u n t r i c s ,

t h a t t h e w i n n e r

may

I d e n t i f i e d

t h e c o u n t r y

whose

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

s u c c e e d e d ;

match

vhlch

is p layed b p

teams which o f f i c i a l body of selectors who are publicly a&knowledged

are s e l e c t e d t o

represent

t h e i r c o u n t r y

h a v i n g

t h e

powei- t o make

such

s e l e c t i o n ; a n d

match

which

orgnn lzed by

t h e o I ' f l c i a l c r i c k e t

administrators

t h e c o ~ n p e t l n g c o u n t r i e s

o r

o f f i c i a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l

body.

team

can be

s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t

c o u n t r y o t h e r

t h a n n T e s t

team,

jf no match

o t h e r t h a n

a tes t match

can

de termine whether

one

count ry

deieats

a n o t h e r ,

o r i f n o c ~ s t c h

has

test

s t a t u s w i t h o u t

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n

t h e o f f lc ia l

. . .Ill.

LJ..

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r

the

o I J l c i ’d1 1n tc rna t lona l body ,

“test“

112s

u n i q u e r e a t u r e s a n d

t h c

t e r m

“test“ cannot

be used

i n d i f I e r c n t l y t o d e s c r i b e

malches

one

mhlcll

h a s ,

nl?d rlnothel.

of which does no t

have ,

xhe

r e l e v a n t

f e a t u r e s .

I€

the

f e a t u r e s are unique ,

t h e term

i ncapab le

t r u t h f u l use

e x c c p t t o d e s c r i b e t h e

match

whlch

p o s s e s s e s

t hose

f e a t u r e s .

The reatures

r e I e r r e d t o are r e l a t e d .

I t is

coinmon ground

tha t

the

o f P j c ia l

a d m m x s t r a t o r s

(national

and

i n t e r n a t i o n a l )

h a o e

h l t h c r t o

o r g a n i z e d

T e s t matches;

t h e o P I i c i a l t h e s e l e c t o r s o f

a d m i n x s t r a t o r s

who

h a v e s e l e c t e d t h e

teams

( o r

the

teams)

and

i t is the

teams

s o

s e l e c t e d

whjch

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

play

i n

the

tes ts .	A b s e n t	t h e	a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,	a n d	t h e	f e a t u r e s may	cease
t o e x i s t .

The

Appe l l an t

argues,

r i g h t l y

i n my

j u d g m e n t ,

t h a t

t hose who a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o u l d

lil lO~x: o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

T e s t

m a t c h e s b y o f f i c i a l

not

b e m i s l e d

o r

dece ived

t h e . use

t h e A p p e l l a n t

t h e terms

complained

o f , once

t h e y Zre

appr i sed

t h e f a c t

t h a t bo th the Board

and

the Confe rence

oppose the hold ing

o€

t he Kor ld

Series

Cr i cke t ma tches .

Although knowledge

may

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

t h e q u e s t i o n

f o y

t h e C o u r t

t o de te rmine

is w h e t h e r t h e r e

a p r i m a i a c i e

case

t h a t t h e use

t h e t e r m s

&complained

would mislead

01- d e c e i v e t h e

class of persons t o whom

the

a d v e r t i s i n g is addres sed .

t h e

p r e s e n t

c a s e ,

t h e r e

s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t

t h e

a d v e r t i s i n g

d i r e c t e d

t o

t h e

g e n e r a l p u b l i c

the knowledgeable

and t h o s e who

are

n o t ,

, l

the

s u p e r f i c i a l r e a d e r

o r viewer

o r l i s t e n e r as well

t h e

p r o f o u n d ,

t h e

g u l l i b l e

w e l l

t h e

c a u t i o u s .

Thc

unique

f e a t u r e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r j l y r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e p u b 1 . i ~

I .

d e p e n d i n g

u p o n

t h e

a c t i v i t i e s

t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

. . . /12.

12.

view, Mr

Par i . sh e s t ab l i shed

a pr i lm € a c i e c a s e

to supPort

i n j u n c t i o n r c s t r a i n i n g t h e

use

the

t e r m s r e f e r r e d

i n

t h e

€our th

and

f i P t h o r d e r s .

shou ld

reIer

p a r t l c d l a r l y t o t h e p r o p o s e d u s c

o f t he Se r i e s Cr i cke t ma tches

t e rm

"Super

T e s t " .

The

d e s c r i p t i o n

the World

"Super

Tests"

\v111

g i v e

rise

a t

t h e t r la l t o a njce question:

does the term d i s t i n g u i s h

these matches dece ive or mis lead ;

from

Tests,

s o that t h e use d f

t he

t e rm does

not

o r does 3.t

convey the meaning that

Super

Tests

a r e

Tests

with

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

u s u a l ?

doub t

t he pub l i c i ty wh ich has been cu r ren t s ince

Hay

and

which used descr ibe matches organized

the

term "Test"

well

" S u p e r t e s t " t o

World

Serles

Crlclret would

a s s i s t

t o d e t e r m i n e

t h i s

q u e s t i o n .

The

ev idence

is such

t o e s t a b l i s h

a prlma

f a c i e c a s e

the r e l e v a n t

sense i n

r e s p e c t

t h e u s e

"Super

Test".

Desirabi l i ty of

Gran t ing an

In,junctj.on

The

a p p l l c a t ~ o n 1s

€or

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

i n j u n c t i o n

which

t h e Cour?; is empowered t o g r a n t i f

i t is of

t h e 01)'

2 111011

t h a t

i t

" d e s i r a b l e

t o

do so" (s.SO(2)).

Prom Islay t o

September,

t h e

matches which a re

promoted

the

Appe l l an t have been desc r ibed in

SOIW

the media

"Tes t s "

o r

"Super

Tests"

and

the p roposed t eam o f Aus i r a l i an p l aye r s

has been proceedings were conunenced,

descr ibed

the

A u s t r a l l a n

team.

Before

t h e s e

a c t ~ o n

vms

taken and

l e t t e r o f

demand

was

s e n t by

BIr P a r i s h o r by t h e Board

r e q u i r i n g

t h e

A p p e l l a n t

o r any

t h e media

t o cease

apF ly ing

those

d e s c r i p t i o n s .

The Appe l l an t

says

that Kr

P a r i s h

g u i l t y o f

l a c h e s

and

t h a t

i n t h r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n

s h o u l d

t h e r e f o r e

refused .

Laches

may b a r a p e t i t i o n e r j n

e q u i t y who

sleeps upon

h i s r i g h t s

from

o b t a i m n g a n

. ,113.

IJ.

l n j u n c t l o n

a g u n s t

one who is inf rJ .ng lng

- those

r i gh t s ,

buL

L I r P a r l s h h a s n o

rl&hl;s

whlch he

1s scekmg t o e n 1 o x c save

t h e r l g h t c o n f e r r e d

upon hlm

b y

S .

SO( 1)

( c ) .

Idr P m x s h

is scelring

i n junc t ion wh ich

would,

i f

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

t h e

in te res t s

01 the Board

of which he

1s Chairman a n d t h e

interests of

t h e p u b l l c	who	may	o the rwlse be dece ived	or	m i s l e d .	An
-

i n j u n c t i o n , h a v i n g

t h e

effect

o f p r o t e c t i n g t h e B o a r d ' s r l g h t s

01 prope r ty , migh t have been pu t

a t

risk

d e l a y , b u t

I t

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

the

Appe l l an t

was

induced by any delzy

o n t h e p a r t o f t h e B o a r d

o r

I:lr

P z r i s h

t o

b e l i e v e t h a t t h e

Board had

no 0bJecl; ion t o t h e u s e

t h e terms nom

complained

t o refer t o t h e m a t c h e s

which

t h e Appe l l an t

is promoting

(see BricBmorlrs	Ltd.	v.	The Counci l of the	Shire	of	\ ' !nrr inqah	'
, I

108

C.L.R.

568

a t

579

and

B.X.

Auto

Sales

P ty . L td .

v .

Budget

Bent-a-Car

Systcm

Pty.

Ltd.

(1976)

A.L.R.

363

a t

p .

372) .

Insofar

a s

t h e i n j u n c t i o n w o u l d p r o t e c t t h e

in te res t s of

t h e p u b l i c ,

delzy - whether on

t h e p a r t

Idr P a r i s h o r of

the Board

is of

lesser we igh t (Assoc ia t ed

h l i n e r a l s C o n s o l l d a t e d L t d .

I'lyong

S h i r e C o u n c i l

L.G.R.A.

323 a t p .

334). .

The Appel lant and companies

with

which

i t is

a s s o c i a t e d p r o p o s e

mass ive adve r t i s ing campa ign

i n

whlch

t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s m a t c h c s

wvll

commendnd

t o t h e A u s t r a l l a n

p u b l l c

h a v m g

features

mhich co r re spond wl th Tes t

matc!les

and which may

i n d e e d surpass them.

The

comparison

with

T e s t

matches

i n h e r e n t

i n

t h e

exercise.

Test

matches

and

World

S e r i e s C r i c k e t m a t c h e s

will

played

d u r l n g t h e

same

s e a s o n ;

t h e Aus t ra l lan T e s t team

and the

I:'orld

S e r i e s Cricket

team

cornposcd

A u s t r a l i a n

p l a y e r s

will

p l a y i n g

i n t h e c o u n t r y

. . ./14.

s m u l t a n c o u s l p .

The

s i t u a t l o n

Eregnznt

with

con1us1 (-m.

3 ,

I € it shou ld t u r n ou t

a t t h e t r j d t h a t

t e

use

t h e term '"Ikst",

"Test

S e r i c s " o r "Supcr T e s t "

o r the

d e s c r i p t i o n

o t

t h e

t eam of Aus t ra l ian

'p layers

"Aus t r a l i a "

o r

"The

A u s t r a l l a n

Team"

decep t ive

o r m i s l e a d i n g ,

t h e

decept ion

wlll

be comple te and the mis leading

w j l l

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

g r a n t e d .

On ba l ance ,

the opin1.011 t h a t 11; i k ' d e s i r a b l e

t o g r a n t

111 t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n .

The

Orders

w o u l d v a r y

t h e f o u r t h a n d f i f t h o r d e r s , b u t

would

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

and

t h i r d o r d e r s .

I l r

P a r i s h d l d n o t e s t a l ~ l i s h t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t

proposed

t o engage

any

r e l e v a n t c o n d u c t o t h e r

t han

t h e

f u r t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n o f E x h i b i t

and

the

use , i n t h e manner

c o n p l a i n e d

o f ,

t h e

terms

"Tes t" ,

"Tes t

Ser

ies"

"Super

Test",

" A u s t r a l i a "

" A u s t r a l i a n

Team".

T h e r e

was

t h e r e f o r e

no p r i m a f a c i e c a s e

to suppor t

the

f j

rst o rde r , and

it should

d i scharged .

d o n o t n e e d

t o

c o n s i d e r

t h e o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s

rvhlch

were

made

to the form of

t h i s o r d e r .

The

Appel lan t had in tended

f i r ther

t o p u b l i s h

Exh ib i t

b u t

i n t he cour se o f p roceed ings

a n

assurance

has

b e e n g i v e n , c o n s i s t e n t l y

mith

e v i d e n c e

t e n d e r e d b e f o r e

t h e

l e a r n e d J u d g e ,

t h a t E x h i b i t

mould

not

be p u b l i s h e d

f u r t h e r .

Tha t

ev idence and assurance

make

u n n e c e s s a r y ,

i n

judgment,

t o make

t h e s e c o n d o r d e r

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e

l i g h t o f

Lhe

o r d e r s which

i t

a p p r o p r i a t e t o

make

and

t o

~vhich I refer below.

The second o r d c r shou ld

d i scha rged .

The

t h i r d o r d e r s h o u l d b e d i s c h a r g e d

€or

t h e r e a s o n s

exprcssed

above.

-It is n o t

d e s i r a b l e

grallt

a n

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

i n

junct ion founded upon the conduct which

would

a l l e g e d 1 y

. .

. p .

-	. -
.. .

d i I f i c u l t i e s .

agree

t h a t the

q u a l l f l c a t i o n

i n

t h e s e

01-ders -'

" i n s u c h

a m y as

t o b c

m~.s lex l lng

o r d e c e p t i v e "

t h e

q u a l i f x c a t i o n i n

the

f o u r t h o r d e r ,

a n d

there is a similar

q u a l i f i c a t i o n

i n the

f i f t h -

should be

deleted.

The

f o u r t h

and f i f t h o r d e r s s h o u l d

reflect

t h e prima

facie case

which

Llr

P a r i s h has shown,

and

t haL is n o t mere1.G

a case tha t t h e

terms

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

a n d I i P t h o r d e r s

mill

used

i n

r e f e r e n c e t o

the A p p e l l a n t ' S

matches

or teams,

b u t

case

t h a t t h e i r

use

i n r e f e r e n c e

t o t h o s e matches

o r teams

will

con t ravene s.52 i n some way .

t h e i r use will con t ravene

s .52

o n l y i n

cerLam

c i rcums tnnces ,

the

I n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d

reflect

the

c i r c u n s t a n c e s j n

which

the

r e f e r e n c e

is prohibited.

P a r i s h ' s u n d e r t a k i n g

t o darnages

r e q u i r e d

t o s a f e g u a r d

t h e i n t e r e s t s

the

Appe l l an t

s h o u l d t u r n o u t

t h a t the

use

the

terms

i n

t h o s e c i r c u m s t z n c e s s h o u l d n o t c o n t r a v c n e

S. 52.

If upon the prlma Iaci e case t h e u s c o f t h e

terms

mould

b e t r u t h f u l p r o v i d e d

the

A p p e l l a n t ' s

matches

and

teams

mere

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

matches

and

teams,

t h e

i n j u n c t t o n s h o u l d r e q u i r e

t he

Appel lan t

t o make

t h e d ~ s t i n c t i o n

when,

o r i f ,

it. uses

t h e s p e c i f i e d

terms

i n r e P e r e n c e

t o its

matches Gr teams.

Such

order is proposed 6y

b r o t h e r s

and, were r e s p e c t t n g t h e matter

n o t f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t y

which

e n t e r t a i n

nexl- t o be

mentioned,

should concur

i n the	v a r i a t i o n	of	t h e I o u r t h a n d	I i f t l l	o r d e r s v h i c h t h e y
3ropose.

d i f f i c u l t y stems

from a view as

t o t h e n a t u r e of

Idr P a r i s h ' s s y c c i P i e d

c a s e .

T h e

term

"Test"

(or the o t h e r terms

111 t h e € o u r t h a n d J i I t h o r d e r s ) c o n n o t e s f e a t u r e s

mhich are un ique t o T e s t matches and which

are no t common

t o

(i! 1;

. . ./16.

J :-.

I !

. I

nature

t h e

p r i m a

o f

facie

case,

t h e use

O C

Lhe

s p e c l j i c d

tei-ms i n r ~ f c r e n c ~

t o matrheq \v171 cl1 dn n o t pn'sess

111c un lque

f e a t u r e s

shown

t o be

m i s l e a d i n g

d e c e p t l v e as

t o t h o s e

f e a t u r e s , w h e t h e r

o r n o t t h e

two l a n d s of

matches

o r thc

teams

t o compete

I n

t h o s e

m a t c h e s

are

d l s t i n c t l y

Identified.

I n

opi .nion, the pr ima

facie case

shown

-Kr Parlsh

s u p p o r t s

order which

restrains

w i t h o u t q u a l l f i c a t i o n t h e u s e

o r

t h e

terms "Test", t o t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s m a t c h e s , a n d

" T e s t

Se r i e s "

and

"Super

T e s t "

i n reference

a n

order which

resLrains

w i t h o u t q u a l i r i c a t i o n

the

use

t h e terms

"The

A n s t r a l l a n

Team"

o r " A u s t r a l i a "

r e I e r e n c c t o t h e

teams

competing

111

those	matches .	I
i

The	a p p l i c a t i o n	t o	t h e	l e a r n e d	J u d g e	was	f o r a	!
I

f o u r t h o r d e r i n

q u a l i f i e d

lorm,

and

f o r

f i f t h o r d e r ( I n

r e s p e c t

t h e t e a m s )

i n

u n q u a l i f i e d

-Torn.

T h l s

C o u r t

must de t e rmine t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n

vhe the r

m e r e l y

t o

d l s c h a r g e

t h e

f o u r t h

o r d e r ,

presently

e x p r e s s e d b e i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e ,

o r whether,

upon

LIr

P a r l s h

g l v l n g

an u n d e r t a l n n g as t o damages

i f a

remoulded

o r d e r s h o u l d b e

made,

too remould

i t .

The

remoulding

t h e f o u r t h o r d e r w o u l d n o t

give

r ise

t o aliy

f r e s h

issue

f o r

d e t e r m m a t i o n .

B u t

t h e

I -

unde r t ak ing as

t o damages

was

g i v e n i n r e s p e c t

a n

I	i n junc t ion	which	was, by	r eason	of	q u a l l f l c a t i o n ,	t h e	l i m i t e d
I

I	i n i t s e x t e n t .	If	t h e order is to be	remoulded,	a n	u n d e r t a k i n g
I

would

requi red which would not

s o

l i m l t e d .

S i m i l a r l y ,

upon

t h e

g iv lng

f r e s h u n d c r t a k i n g

as t o damages,

t h e f i f t h

01-der

should be remoulded. I concur

i n t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e

qualification

expres sed

i n I X s

Honour ' s o rde r s shou ld

d e l e t e d , a n d t h a t a n o r d e r

i n

r e s t r a l n i n g

the

Appe l l an t

u n t i l

Lhe

t r i a l

t h e s e p r o c e e d l n g s

€rom

r e f e r r i n g i n t r a d e

o r commerce

t o a n y c r i c k e t

matches

organized by

L t as

"Tes ts" ,

"Tes t

Serjes" o r "Super Tes t s " ,

and from r e r e r r i n g t o any

teams

c r l c k e b - p l a y e r s

i n cricket

matches organlzed	by 1	t as "The Iiustrsljan Teau" or
"Aust ra l ia" .

concur i n the o rde r p roposed

by the Chief Judge

as	t o c o s t s .

[1977] FCA 77

2 Nov 1977