World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish

[1977] FCA 77

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).

I

I

Sydncy , 2nd. Iaovenber , 1 977

Appellant (Respondent)

I

- 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

' I

lnjunc'tlon. The proceedlngs were comnenccb. by Ylr. Robert

James ParlsJl. He obtained an o r d e r n i s i c a l l m g upon

I 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. On 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.

I

The background I a c t s a r e n o t in 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 of 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 1s gene ra l ly con t ro l l ed by 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 a 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

by 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 of 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 of 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 oi

t h e Australl;;; Crrcket Board, he 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

I - -

l

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 01 c r i c k e t matqhes organisecl

3

! 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 , up of 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.	, .
, '

On 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 on

th i s brochure tha t Me. Per ish based par t of his complaint .

The brochure 1s i n evidence as E x l n b i t llBrl. It contains

I

statements ab0u.t the proposed Super Test series, photographs o€

crlclceters !:ha will be p a r t i c i p a t l n g i n t h e s e r i e s . a schedu1.e

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

- 4 -

"On November 20 t h i s y e a r , t h e h e s t of 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 of

t he I ~ O S i: 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 to

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 . . . 11

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 on the brochure are the words lll?orld Series CricketIt,

and a logo of the appel lan t bear ing the vords Vor ld Ser ies

Cricket t t . Emphasis 1s p laced ln The brochure on t h e a b l l l t y

of the cricketers concerned and the expected high standard of 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 of s ix teen , and by 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 to s.80 of the Trade Pract ices Act 197h. He 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 2 corpora t icn

or cominerce, engage i n conduct that is

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 of cr icket matches belr?g orga~!? G-6

by Vorld. Series Crlcket Pty. Limited were organised by 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 on 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 of

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 I; 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

by the Aus t ra l ian Cr icke t Board.

I ..

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 LT 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 an 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 of Edward FurnlTJal

GrlL'fin sworn 22nd September, 1977 and f i l e d h e r e i n .

3. 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 or 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 do ,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!’, to 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 a

person from engzgiiig in 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 or no t i t appears that t h e

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

I damages cannot be requ~red o f them as a condi t lon f o r t h e

grant ing of an 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? an 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 as a faci; on the evidence before h i m

that the appel lan t*s adver t i sement would be 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 on 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

I - 8 -

I I .

desirable to do sol1. These words confer a jud~.clal. d s c r e t l o n

of the widest kind upon the Court . It 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 of 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 or 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 is equi tab le ,

i- t i s inherent i n the na tu re of 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 be

de termlned will be lncoyple te and u.nzatisfac-korg f n r t h e purpose

I

of making 2 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>.$:

I

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 of 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 .

it invoked pr inciples developed in equi ty t o

determine how it shoula' exercl se 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 of 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

I

p l a i n t i f f vi11 be held eat i t led to 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 of 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 , it 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 of convenience. It

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. as 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, or a ser ious ques t ion to be t r led m

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 of the 3lgh C o l i r c

- 10 -

Proceedings under the Trade Practices Act

have 8 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 a 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 . h appl icant f o r an injunct ion under 5 .E@

need not shov t h a t a p r o p r i e t a r y i o t e r e s t of 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 a r iva l competitor seeking redress o f

damage to i l ls bu-slness caused by the al legedly unfair and 11'Legal

p r a c t i c e s of 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 V o f t h e Act I n corne

!

I .

- 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 8 %

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

balance of convenience should be ignored or that a p a r t y ' s I

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 a course apply v i t h equa l fo rce to

proceedlngs under the Trade Practices Act as they do elsewhere.

That is not to 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 be 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 .a 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

of copyrlght. In The s2me way spec ia l cons idera t ions wi11. a r l s e I

under Lhe Trade Practices Act, and the Court wlll no t necessa r l ly

I

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 be 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 a possibCLi ty o f success on the €ma l hea r ing tha t 1-t rmuld

I

- 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 a

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

the Austral lan Cricket Board.'# H i s Honour found an

advert isenent for television which used the words IISuper

Tests1I on one occas lon in a 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 I am 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

by 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

l

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 be

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 -

i

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 m 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 of convenience

requl red the gran t of inpmct ive re l ie€ . Fur thermore , I

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 of t h e words

, r

- 1 4 -

I

llTestsll or "Test series1! or IISuper Testsll and the reference

to l lAustral lan team1' or "Aws Lrallall i n a s s o c i a t l o n wlth a

c r i c k e t -Lean, vJhere used in the b rochure or elserrhere including

te levis ion advert isements .

I t 1 s suggested that persons reading or

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 of 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 a lso argued

t h a t t h e r e was a p o s s i b i l i t y o r e r r o r i n t h a t a person reading

this materlal might wrongly conclude that matches berng comiucked

by 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 as to 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 or 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 In r e l a t i o n -to the staging of these matches.

However, a person may have-some acquaintance

3

wi th e s t ab l i shed t e s t c r i cke t w i thou t knowing by 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 as 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.

It 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 .

At 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 on the evjdence

r e l a t i n g to the i ssues i n d ispute . Br le f ly , I am 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

I - I 6 -

I	.
I
l

by an ad jec t ive , as m the expresslon IICentenary Test". I

am a l s o of 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 of a 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 to

However,

I thlnli a 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 by 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 v. Vest Indlesll.

The appel lan t gave an assurance to 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 , I

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 , on

the balance of convenlence, injunct ive rel ief should be 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 a d i sc re t l ona ry . l ac t o r which the Court ought

the balance of convenlence s o as to

d i s e n t i t l e the respondent t o r e l i e f . It is not an easy matter t o

determine the relevance of a defence of laches t o an appl ica t lon io:.

an interim injuncLion under the Act. If 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 , it 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 ic interest involved, the Court

I.

will be slower t o w i thho ld r e l i e f t han would an equlty court In

a s u i t the Privy Council involv ing only ind iv idua l in te res t s . As 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 by denlax of 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 , If 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 ; of 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 of 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

of the publ ic in te res t in 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 to h i s

I

- 18 -

detriment. T h l s , however, will alvays depend on the Circumstances

of 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 , as 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 of I

symbols, n m e s and photographs i n the brochure Exhibi t and

I

i n the te lev ls ion adver t i sements uh ich Yr. Parlsh complains

, I

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 ) .

i On the balance of convenience it ought t o I

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 on

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 no 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

I

contraveneds i- t is necessary to look , on 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 on 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 a progrmux

of 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

he 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 . On 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 by the r e fusa l of t he In t e r im re l i e1 wou1.d

be 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 by 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 is

the appel lan t , It is usual ly proper t o main ta in the s ta tus quo,

i n t h i s case, by 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 do not f m d

it 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 be 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 my view, it is of ten undesirable

t o €rame in t e r locu to ry orders i n such a 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 , it tu11 usual ly not be

possible to determule, on a contempt appllcation, whether o r

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

Consoljdated Press Limited v. - NorEan a Anor. (7.965) 112 C.L.R.

483) . By 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 of a

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 a

purpose which an in te r locutory order 1 s meant to se rve .

I propose that the orders nade by his Honour

be set damages as ide. SubJect to an 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 be 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 lt as Tes ts or a

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

by the Aus t rz l lan Cr icke t Board or 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

by the Aus t r a l i an .Criclce t Board.

1 propose tha t the cos ts os' the proceedings

below and of t h i s a p p e a l be c o s t s i n the cause. I propose t h Y t

l i be rby be 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 on tiro days no-bee.

, - . .. .- - . . . . . - . . .

- 22 -

!

!

I

.- . .

I

I .

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 A 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 an 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

a s ing le Judge of 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 of 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

of t h e Austral ian Cr i cke t Board bu t t he p roceed ings were

brought on h i s own beha l f and no t on b e h a l f of 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 of 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 is 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

I do 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 in 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 a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount

of publicity i n t h e media d i r e c t e d t o t h e matter of 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 of

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 in games a r ranged by

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 :-

l. 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

.I

t o mis l ead or dece ive . 3

2. P u b l i s h i n g or 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 of 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 by 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

of 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 a way as 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 by i t as "Tests" or "Test

Series" or "Super Tests".

5. R e f e r r i n g t o a n y teams of 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 it as "The A u s t r a l i a n Team" o r " A u s t r a l i a "

or any slmilar e x p r e s s i o n i n s u c h a way as t o m i s l e a d or

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 an 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 by 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 S. 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 of somc of 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 of 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- J

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 a contravention of

S . 52 o r S . 53(c) . It vas cornnon ground that no quest ion arose as

to the right 01 the respondent to commence the proceedmgs.

.,

A n advertisement (Exhibit B) by the appe l l an t was published

as a fou r page in se r t ( " the b rochureT1) in a 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 to be staged

by the appe l l an t as "Super Tests '! , played under Vest Match

condi t ions ' l , re fe r red to a team of Aus t ra l lan p layers as "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 In

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 . On 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 It 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 it 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 3, 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 of t h e p u b l i c i n t o whose hands it 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 by the Aus t ra l lan Cr icke t

Board. It was argued that the learned t r i a l Judge had approached I

the matter under considerat ion by making €inal €indings of €act

and by 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 is d e s i r a b l e t o do so.

I - .

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.

I am 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 v. 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 an lnter im injunct lon he had to be satisfied t h a t a

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 a 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 do s o , t o gr'ant an

. 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 t o

I

continue t o engage i n conduct cont ra ry to S . 52 o r s .53(c) and

indeed, i n the case of an 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, 3, 4 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 a € h a 1 f inding o f f a c t ig r e l a t ion to the b rochure ,

I cons ider tha t the appel lank has made ou t a 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 on It

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

-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 .

I th ink thal; the Court, In decidlng whether o r no t a

prima facie case has been made ou t , i s requi red t o examine as

-

the major question whether a 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 t matches. I

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 1s 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.

It 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

i 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 of t he f ind lngs t ha t I have already made I

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 of any advertisements en

persons who a r e no more r e l evan t t h m as viewers of 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 a € 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

I

t he b rochure wu ld be l i k e l y t o - d e c e i v e o r mislead a t lear,L a

s u f f i c i e n t number o f po ten t ia l purchasers of t i c k e t s . Whilst it

may be s a d tha t t he ph rase llSuper Testsll had no I;, a t t h e d a t e

I

I

I

..

-6-

of 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 of 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, it 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 . I think t ha t s o fa r as concerns I '

a prima f a c i e c a s e , it i s ll lcely that a s u f f i c i e n t s e c t i o n of

t he po ten t i a l pu rchase r s of 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 be 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 a 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 I consider tha t a pr lma facie case has

been made out in the case o€ a match organised by 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 be c l ea r ly d i s t ingu l shed from a 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

I evidence, tha-t the appellant has organised such matches €or t h e

I coming cr icket season. I do not consider it necessary to hare

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

I

a team of p layers f r o m any other country because none are planned .

by 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 I am 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 be assoclated '

- 5 f ' -

with matches i n whhlch t h e team of Aus t ra l lan p layers were selec tcd,

I

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 to us t h a t on the balance

of convenience relief should not be granted because OP i t s e f f e c t

on the adve r t i s ing o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . I n my opinion, no 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 a €air

manner t h e a c t i v i t i e s i n whlch It proposed t o engage.

Considerable argument took place before us on 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 on condcct

-to which s.52 o r s .53(c) appl ied. Nat ters which would support

a defence of laches seem appropriate for examinat lon in declding

!

whether it i s d e s i r a b l e t o g r a n t an interim in junc t ion , but I do

no t cons ide r t ha t s ince the func t ion of t h i s l e g i s l a t l o n 1s t h e

p ro tec t lon of consumers, one should necessarily give effecz i o

the defence unless it i s c l e a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o do so. Sect ion

80 ( l ) ( c ) pe rmi t s a wide var ie ty of people to take proceedings and

it 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 as 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 of the con&ct of 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 us I do no t

consider t h a t , on the evidence, any conduct of Mr. Par i sh o r

lack of act ion by 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 a 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 by the appel lan t for the purpose of'

I

-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

accept tl& assurance.

I do not th lnk Order 3 is appropriate because I consider

that, on the mater la l be lore the Cour t , the y r d s ' 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

I

knom cr icke t tes t matches and the Aus t ra l iaa Cr icke t Boarfi or

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. W i Lhout wi sh ing to l ay down

any p r i n c i p l e s , I cons ide r t ha t it 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.

I propose tha t the ordzrs made by H i s Honour be 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 be granted ~ E ~ X ~ J E ;

the determinat ion of 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 by it as T e s k o r

a 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

by t h e kustrallan Cricket Board o r t he In t e rna t iona l

Cricket Conference.

(2) Referring -to any tern of c r icke t p layers in 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.

2

t

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 be pro tec ted 1 s one t o which the

l p l a in lx f f has no exc lus ive r lgh t h-.:; which has achieved a

secondary meanlng to a 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). I 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 go 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 of t h e Court t o g ive a 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 he can sa i l .

I would o rde r t he cos t s of the proceedlngs before the

s i n g l e Judge and of t h i s a p p e a l be 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 on two day ' s

no t ice .

I

l

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 , a 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 m 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 of

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 of the Conference (now known as 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 in 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 i n

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 bg 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 as "'l'ests". The Oxford dlct ional-y g ~ v e s

b .

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 in

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 In that month, an

he 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 of

some of 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 a 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 In 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 b y t h e C h a n n e l 9 aeti:.ork. The more important matches

of 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 , as "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

is t h e p r o m o t e r of 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 " to aid i n its

promotion	of	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 of 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 of the

i

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:

On 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 a

01 t h i s C o u r t on the I o l l o w i n g d a y , why it 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 of 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 an ' a p p l i c a t i o n € o r an 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 - I

I

, 1 .

Prom engaging 111 t h e I o l l o w i n g c o n d u c t :

I _. "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 or d e c e i v e .

2. P u b l i s h i n g of 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 by It

h a v e t h c sponsorshlp o r a p p r o v a l or any

a f f i l i a t l o n 1~~2th t 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 5

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 or 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 as "Tes ts" or

"Test Series" o r "Super T e s t s " .

5. 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 is common g r o u n d t h a t t h e o r d e r js i n t e n d e d t o be l imi - t ed

i n p o i n t of 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

be clear from t h e terms of 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 an 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 .

M r 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 , is the cha i rman o f t he

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

I

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 be restrained

by 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 be

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 he

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 is n o t r e q u l r e d

. . . /4.

by 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 of rvllich

I , .

t h e 1 n J u n c t i o n is s o u g h t . S . 5 2 ( 1 ) p r o v l d e s -

l ' 52. (1) A 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 16 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 -

I' 53. A corpora t ion shn l .1 no t , in 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 or

p o s s i b l e s u p p l y of goods o r s e r v l c e s or i n

connexion with the promotion by any msans of

t h e s u p p l y o r u s e of goods or 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 o r

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 of a k i n d familiar in 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 S2 are not w r i t t e n on a

p a l i m p s e s t on 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

I

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 OP 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 or 5 3 ( c ) , and a 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 ) is whether the conduct complained of 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 an i n j u n c t i o n is sought t o

r e s t r a i n a c o r p o r a t i o n Irom engaging i n c c n d u c t of a certaln

k i n d , t h e i s s u e is whether conduct of 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 an

/-

i n j u n c t i v e o r d e r a n d as 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 to 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 of e q u i t y d o n o t mark t h e limits 01 r e l e v a n c y or

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 of 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 in hand. When an 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 of 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, a 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 by a c o u r t of e q u i t y . B u t t h e

is 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 is cha rged wi th a 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 is t h e p r e s e n t case.

I t is Conceded t h a t N r Pa r i sh , t bough no t su ing on

beha l f of t h e Board, is 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 on

from a c o u r t of 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 of a n i n j u n c t i o n

. . ./G.

h.

I L on 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

I map b e f u l . f i l l e d b y t h e grant.Lng o f an i n J u n c t i o n i n such a

-- case? The purpose canno t be 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 or 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 h e a p p l i c a n t 1s 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 of which he .cornplains.

\‘/hen ss .52 and 53 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 or

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 of t h e s t a t u t e 1s 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 or 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 a 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 m .y :

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,

of 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 b e 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 of t h e f a c t o r s is not dependent upon the i n t e re s t s

( I € a n y j of 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 .
In t h e p r e s e n t case, M r 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 a 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 . v. 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 in which thc Appel lan t 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 it 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 as t o t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p o s e d

7

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 of 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 B 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 of t h e c r i c l t e t m a t c h e s t o

be promoted by it 3s "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 be p l a y e d as " 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 as " 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 01 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

by 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 a 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 .

8.

Does it 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 a 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 . A 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 be proscribed accordingly ( U . S . - v. 95 Barrels e t c . o f

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

To 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 a 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, a 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 by it

a s "Tests" o r "Test Series" o r "Super Tests" i n

such a 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 in cricket matches organized

by 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 . of t l1c

k ind ment ioned in 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 be 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 . To 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 of a match as a T e s t or t h e d m c r l p t i o n of a

team as be tween tha t match t h e A u s t r a l i a n team would convey a 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

by a 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 a 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 is n o t n e c e s s a r y , i n my

judgment, so t o d e c i d e . If such a meaning mere conveyed, 11-

would be conveyed t o a class, t h e overmheliuing majority of whom

would knO\v of t h e d i s p u t e between the A p p e l l a n t , as promoter

. ,

of 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 . If t h e r e were

a 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 by 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 of 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 a 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 a f i n d l n g on an 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 on t h a t a c c o u n t t o be set

a s i d e - a 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

I

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

I . -

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 OP t h e

..

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

t h e matches o r of t h e teams compet ing there in mhich is

u n t r u e , h I r P a r i s h mill have established h i s case. A meaning

r e a s o n a b l y a t t r i b u t e d to a term by members of 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 be 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 __

v. 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 at 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 is d i s t i n g u l s h e d

by a number of 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 is

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 , so t h a t t h e w i n n e r may be I d e n t i f i e d as 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 ; a 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 by an

as

h a v i n g t h e powei- t o make such a s e l e c t i o n ; a n d a match

which 1s orgnn lzed by t h e o I ' f l c i a l c r i c k e t administrators

of t h e c o ~ n p e t l n g c o u n t r i e s o r by an o f f i c i a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l

body.

If no team can be s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t a 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 of 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 of the o I J l c i ’d1 1n tc rna t lona l body , n “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 of 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 is i ncapab le 01 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; it is

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 6f 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 by t h e . use

by t h e A p p e l l a n t of t h e terms complained o f , once t h e y Zre

appr i sed of 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 be a 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 is

a p r i m a i a c i e case t h a t t h e use of t h e t e r m s &complained of

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 . In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e is

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 is 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 as t h e

p r o f o u n d , t h e g u l l i b l e as w e l l as 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 ~ as

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 of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . In my

. . . /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 an

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 oP the t e r m s r e f e r r e d to i n

t h e €our th and f i P t h o r d e r s .

I 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 of the World

as "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

m

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 ?

No 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" as well as " S u p e r t e s t " t o

by 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 as

t o e s t a b l i s h a prlma f a c i e c a s e in the r e l e v a n t sense i n

r e s p e c t of t h e u s e of "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 an 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 is " 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 to be promoted by the

Appe l l an t have been desc r ibed in SOIW 01 the media as "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 as the A u s t r a l l a n team. Before t h e s e

!

no a c t ~ o n vms taken and no

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 01 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 is

g u i l t y o f l a c h e s and t h a t an 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 be 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

I

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 an 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 by 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 of 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 of t h e terms nom complained

of 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 p. 579 and B.X. Auto Sales P ty . L td . v .

Budget Bent-a-Car Systcm Pty. Ltd. (1976) 12 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 OP

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 . v. I'lyong S h i r e C o u n c i l 29 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 a 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 be commendnd t o t h e A u s t r a l l a n

p u b l l c as 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 is i n h e r e n t i n t h e exercise. Test matches and World I

S e r i e s C r i c k e t m a t c h e s will be 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 of A u s t r a l i a n p l a y e r s will be 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 1s 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

.	.
01 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 as "Aus t r a l i a "
o r "The A u s t r a l l a n Team" is 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 be
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 is g r a n t e d .
On ba l ance , I am 01 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 a

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

The Orders

I 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 I 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 in 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 B and the use , i n t h e manner

c o n p l a i n e d o f , of t h e terms "Tes t" , "Tes t Ser ies" , "Super

Test", " A u s t r a l i a " or " 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

be d i scharged . I 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 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 B 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 it u n n e c e s s a r y , i n my

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 is 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 be 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 to 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 . I 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 " 16 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 be 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 is a 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 . If 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.

Mr P a r i s h ' s u n d e r t a k i n g as t o darnages is 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 of the Appe l l an t iP it s h o u l d t u r n o u t t h a t the

use of 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

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 an order is proposed 6y my b r o t h e r s

and, were r e s p e c t t n g t h e matter it n o t f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t y which I e n t e r t a i n

nexl- t o be mentioned, I 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.

A lp 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

(i! 1; ' . . ./16.

J :-. I !

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 is shown t o be m i s l e a d i n g or 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

my opi .nion, the pr ima facie case shown by -Kr Parlsh s u p p o r t s

an 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 of 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 " in 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 a q u a l i f i e d lorm, and f o r a f i f t h o r d e r ( I n

r e s p e c t of t h e t e a m s ) i n a 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 ,

I 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 of 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 of a n

I

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 be requi red which would not be 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 of a f r e s h u n d c r t a k i n g

I

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

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 of 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 of 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" .

I concur i n the o rde r p roposed by the Chief Judge

as t o c o s t s .