Wynnes Pty Limited & Ors v Western Australian Meat Marketing Corporation & Anor; Wilson & Anor v Western Australian Meat Marketing Corporation

[1992] HCATrans 229

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In Chambers

MR JUSTICE TOOHEY

No P 8 of 1989

No P 11 of 1990

WYNNES PTY LIMITED & ORS

and

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MEAT MARKETING CORPORATION & ANOR

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

PERTH

10.00 AM, TUESDAY, 11TH AUGUST 1992

Wynnes (vb) 1 11.8.92

EO

bx17/mf/10.0l

HIS HONOUR:  Be seated, please.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  May it please the court. Your Honour, I appear

on behalf of the plaintiffs.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

Mr Heenan?

MR HEENAN:  May it please your Honour, I appear with my

learned friend Mr Goetze for the first defendant.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.

Miss Wheeler?

MS WHEELER:	If it please your Honour, I appear for the second
defendant.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you.

Yes, Dr Schoombee?

DR SCHOOMBEE: Your Honour, we've reached the stage, as you

may be aware, of the documents filed that there is a

substantial agreement on a number of issues. We still have

problems on stating a case in respect, as I see it, of
particularly four areas and what I would propose doing is to

run through the outstanding issues, subject to any

observations your Honour may wish to make naturally, because

that would identify whether we are really looking at a dispute

of formulation rather than a true dispute of fact. If however

it appears that we really have what may be termed a hard core

of genuine unresolved factual dispute then in my view - - or

in our submission respectfully the matter should go to a

hearing on those matters, so the exercise would serve then a

dual purpose of establishing whether we can reach agreement on

a stated case at the same time, identifying what issues should

be heard on remi tter. I can perhaps indicate at this stage

area of consensus in some of the most difficult issues we have	that certainly our submission would be that given the wide	reached the stated case. It would realiy be a case of a
remitter on the hearing of specific issues rather than, in my view, going to trial on the matter, and after resolution of
those factual disputes the matter can then come back to the
High Court and the case he started. That would be my
submission, that the first part of the exercise, subject to
any observations of your Honour, would be simply to take the
discussion draft and to look at our objections thereto and to identify the outstanding issues.
11.8.92
Wynnes
bx12/mf
HIS HONOUR: Well, I suppose that's one way of doing it. The
other is for you simply to formulate those issues that you
submit ought to be remitted.
DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes, yes. Well, I
HIS HONOUR:  Then I can hear from counsel for the defendants.
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes. My submission - -
HIS HONOUR: I mean, unless you think that by going through it in the way that you suggest, Dr Schoombee, somehow agreement
might emerge, but I don't know what that's more likely to happen than it would in conference between the parties.
DR SCHOOMBEE: Well, perhaps if I may be allowed to say, sir,
if it is ventilated in the open under your Honour's gaze it
may be a different matter, but also I think there is a real
problem in identifying whether we are dealing with the factual
issue or not, particularly because in at least three of the four main areas we are dealing with matters which really arose during the formulation of the stated case rather than matters
to which one can simply refer to the pleadings and say, "Well,
there's a dispute on the pleadings", so it was really the
raising of issues in the stated case and their particular
formulation that has given rise to areas where the parties can't see eye to eye. I am not for a moment suggesting - - let me hasten to add that we're simply bound by the pleadings.
I mean, the case has moved on. I think both parties have advanced important matters that should go before the High Court but certainly there is this element that if something has not been pleaded then the issue really exists only in a
disputed form in the stated case.
HIS HONOUR: Because if the matter is remitted it becomes a
long haul, I suppose, before the constitutional question
finally emerges.
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes, yes. Well, again there I envisaged that
one would deal with perhaps the exceptional type of remitter in this case. Given the fact that we have a stated case for
these patches of dispute to remit for a hearing on those matters, to resolve the factual issues and for the matter to
come back then and depending on the co-operation one can get
from the court to which it is remitted and that can hopefully
be done within a reasonable period of time rather than send the matter to trial. so I would envisage that this would be
the Mabo type of reference where in fact the High Court the case comes back to the High court upon resolution of the
factual issues, or the outstanding factual issues.
11.8.92
Wynnes
bx12/mf
HIS HONOUR:  Yes. All right.
DR SCHOOMBEE:  So if that is - - if I may then take your
Honour just to our objections and the - -
HIS HONOUR:  What documents should I have, Dr Schoombee? I
should have the - -
DR SCHOOMBEE: Your Honour should have a document dated - -
the plaintiff's revised objections to the first defendant's latest case. I have handed to your associate the hard copy of
that which was faxed to the court.
HIS HONOUR:  I have that. As a starting point, I take it, I
should have the document headed:  First defendant's revised
discussion draft, consolidated case stated 25 June 1992, including further revisions discussed at conference on 6
August 1992?
DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. There's also an annexure or a memorandum
which enlightens that aspect which perhaps your Honour may keep handy. That's just entitled: An annexure. It emanates from the first defendant and it's about one and a half pages.
HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I have that. Then there is an affidavit of
Jonathan7 David Burston.
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes.
HIS HONOUR:  Is that ... (voices superimposed) ...
DR SCHOOMBEE:  I don't think we ought be dealing with it at
this stage - -
HIS HONOUR:  - - to what we're doing at the moment?
DR SCHOOMBEE:  It may crop_ up at some stage but I don't
envisage taking your Honour to the affidavits at this stage.
I apologise - on page 4 there are two typographical errors.

If I may then just go through the revised objections - -

Paragraph 2 misses a paragraph. It has been supplied in your hard copy, your Honour. It should read "Paragraph 4" which

simply says "Draft to be changed" and then the - - but the

first two paragraphs there are really now - - I think would

not cause us any problems.

HIS HONOUR:  When you say the first two are you using the

numbering of the document or the numbering of the paragraphs?

DR SCHOOMBEE: I'm using the numbering of the document, so

paragraphs 1 and 2 referring to paragraphs 3 and 4, as I

understand it.	As far as paragraph 3 in the document,
11.8.92
Wynnes

•

bx12/mf

referring to paragraph - - what should now be 15C - we have

raised the issue that this may be omitted. I don't think that is a great point. Your Honour, that deals with the other

activities of the corporation, which is on page 7 of the discussion draft and deals with, for instance, activities in trading like matters such as goat, beef and veal and the like

and we thought that's irrelevant. That's on page 7 of the

revised discussion draft.

HIS HONOUR:	I see that.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	That really goes to a matter - - what is

appropriate rather than what is in dispute.

The next paragraph goes back to the matter of law, and in

discussion with the parties it emerged that we should set up

certainly the key provisions of the Act which is now contained

in 15D because they underlie the factual allegations, and

that's on page 8. That explains why you can't slaughter a

lamb unless it's slaughtered, in broad terms, under the auspices of the first defendant. In our latest revised objections we suggested the addition of two paragraphs simply

to make sure that it is not disjointed in any way and also in one of the additional paragraphs we suggest there is a factual

matter which arises, and that is the question whether the

powers under section 16(3) these powers have ever been

exercised, and my instructions are they have never been

exercised, but we can hear from Mr Heenan on that point.

HIS HONOUR:  Are you saying that there's agreement with

the defendants as to the inclusion of these additional

subparagraphs?

DR SCHOOMBEE:	I think there is certainly agreement on 15D as
it is in the revised draft.	The additional paragraphs - I've

not heard from my learned friend on that.

MR HEENAN: Your Honour, I'm not sure if you wish to hear from

me at this point or you would prefer to hear submissions

entirely from my friend.

HIS HONOUR: I think I'd better hear from Dr Schoombee, Mr

Heenan, thank you, unless there is something that can

obviously be the subject of a shortcut by simply you pointing out that that matter is no longer in issue. I'd be glad to hear from you in that event.

MR HEENAN: I think I can say that the proposed addition,

15B (b) , the first addition on page 2 - we would have no

objections if that were to be included.

11. 8. 92

Wynnes SCHOOMBEE

(Continued on page 5a)

bxl2/mf

HIS HONOUR:	That's the subparagraph marked with small D
capital A?

MR HEENAN:  Roman I, but not Roman II. And we would accept

the last paragraph, subject to section 23(3) (a).

HIS HONOUR:	Thank you.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	That brings us then on to the next issue, which
is I think - -
HIS HONOUR:	Is this the first of the four areas to which you

referred earlier?

DR SCHOOMBEE:	No.
HIS HONOUR:	We haven't got to those yet?
DR SCHOOMBEE:	No. We're about to get to the first one.

HIS HONOUR: I thought there was a discussion on the last

occasion about the method employed in the case stated of

setting out what was virtually a paraphrase of· legislative

provisions.

DR SCHOOMBEE: That is so - -

HIS HONOUR:	And some objection expressed by Mr Heenan
11.8.92
Wynnes	5a

EO

adz4/bi/10.11

HIS HONOUR (Continuing):	- by Mr Heenan to that course.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	I feel it was the other way around.
HIS HONOUR:	Or the other way around, was it?

DR SCHOOMBEE: · Yes, that is so. Some of the provisions we

kept in - - We simply thought that it is important to put that

in because, for instance, if one went to the next - -

HIS HONOUR:  Well, if the parties are in agreement about that

I don't think I need trouble you.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. The only problem is - - I think we can

leave that aside for the moment, is that it does leave open

whether the powers under section 16(3) have ever been

exercised and if so, how have they been exercised. But

that's really a factual matter.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, is that critical to the case stated

so far as the plaintiff is concerned?

DR SCHOOMBEE: I wouldn't describe it as "critical" but I will

just have to consider what the implications are if we go

forward without putting that in. Certainly the first

important area which appears to be a matter of dispute, in

formulation if not in true fact, is paragraph 19(c) where the first defendant we're saying is seeking to introduce and rely on the issue of stabilisation.

And if I may take your Honour to paragraph 19(c) - it's

on page 14. Now, the essential difference there is that the defendant is requiring us to state the effect of stabilisation

as a matter of fact, that that is actually what the scheme

achieves. We say we're certainly not willing to accept that but we are willing to accept that that is the opinion held by the first defendant and it acts in terms of that opinion. And

that change, your Honour, is reflected on our page 2 of our document where we have drafted our version of small c. That's

at the bottom of page 2 over the page.

The only other differences in our version to their

version is at the bottom of page 2; we say that the producer

price schedule not offers but is stated to offer. And that

really picks up the change that's already in the draft because

it does not necessarily offer all producers the same quality produce because of the point we've made, namely, that only at

Robb Jetty can the producer be sure that he will be paid that,

otherwise he pays a commercial - - or the price is negotiated

with the abattoir. But it is certainly stated to offer, and

that appears from the documentation.

11.8.92

Wynnes	6
adz4/bi
HIS HONOUR:	Well, is that the sticking point between the
parties?

DR SCHOOMBEE: I really think the sticking point, if your

Honour goes over on the page, is this question where we've - -

the bit that's underlined on page 3, namely: "It is the

opinion - - 11 We've inserted that it's a matter of opinion

that it achieves a stabilisation, not a matter of fact.

This is a matter where really the focus on stabilisation

came through in the stated case or the debate about that rather than the pleadings which simply spoke about an

equalisation of prices which when properly formulated we've

never had any objection against. In fact our case is based on the equalisation of prices between the export and domestic

market.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, what is it that would be sought to be

remitted in this area?

DR SCHOOMBEE:  That's a good question, your Honour. I mean,

one can test the problem in this way. If we really have to

try that then we would have to try whether this scheme has the effect of stabilisation of prices which would be a wide

ranging if not totally untrammelled issue or with no sides to it or confines. And that's one of the reasons why we say, well, this is not a matter that we will agree that it achieves

that result. I mean, a stabilisation of prices is a complex

market evaluation and there is a lot of evaluation built into	the very words II stabilisation of prices. 11 That's certainly
not something we will - - we can agree to as a factual effect
of the scheme. As an aim, we' re quite happy and we accept that's an aim they are seeking to achieve. I may add that I
can't really see what the function of this would be as a fact
because it's certainly I think fair to say it's a fact in
their armoury, as it were. I think Mr Heenan indicated at the
original hearing with reference by analogy to the section 92
cases that this may be one of those, as it were, defence
points like reasonable regulation under section 92 in its
excuse for, say, a bounty argument. I'm not sure that it can. traditional form that stabilisation may somehow provide an It certainly can't provide I think an excuse for an excise
point. But also as a matter of constitutional law it wouldn't
appear to have that e f feet. So it' s really in a sense a
collateral or background issue which is - - it would be very
difficult to resolve on any hearing.
HIS HONOUR:  It may be that the opinion of the first defendant
is not particularly relevant. Is that true of an assertion
that it is the aim of the first defendant to achieve a
stabilisation of prices? Is that a relevant consideration or
not?
11.8.92
Wynnes

adz4/bi

DR SCHOOMBEE: I think it may - - It's difficult. It would

certainly not be a first order consideration, but it may

certainly be something that would explain the system and

particularly, say, on a bounty argument be something that

the High Court may well regard as relevant in judging the

overall effect of the scheme.

HIS HONOUR:  If the matter were formulated in that way would

the plaintiffs have any objection?

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Oh, no, we have no objection to aim. If it's

stated as an aim we have no objection. That's why we've in

fact sought to formulate it in an aim, and we were even

willing in our draft to go further and to accept that they

think that they actually achieve it.

HIS HONOUR:	But you haven't formulated it in terms of aim - -
DR SCHOOMBEE:	No, I haven't, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	- - but in terms of opinion.

DR SCHOOMBEE: In terms of opinion. Yes.

HIS HONOUR:	Well, that may not represent an insuperable
problem.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Perhaps before we go any further on that point I

should ask Mr Heenan.

Mr Heenan, is it possible to reach agreement in terms of the a·im of the - - the object of the first defendant rather than an assertion that it has been achieved or, on the other

hand, no more than an opinion that it has been achieved?

MR HEENAN:  Well, your Honour, my instructions are that the

stabilisation is an important element of the scheme and that

it is achieved by the operation of the scheme. No lambs can

be sold for slaughter in this state other than to the
corporation, and when so sold are subject to the scheme.

Now, the effect of the scheme undoubtedly is to avoid wild fluctuations in prices, both between the seasonal variation - although there are seasonal changes but they' re not rapid changes, there are constant prices on constant days - and there is the cross - - the indirect subsidy of the export market by the domestic market. Those are undoubted

results. And as the commission is the only conduit through

which lambs can be sold for slaughter we find it difficult to understand how my learned friend is arguing for a contention

that it does not affect the stabilisation of prices.	We are
11.8.92
Wynnes	SCHOOMBEE
adz4/bi

only speaking about lambs which are being sold for slaughter

in this case, not the market in lambs generally. And we are not dealing with speculators in lambs before the point of

slaughter.

So our situation is that this is achieved, and we are

not presently able to see the reason for the controversy which

is asserted by the plaintiffs or that it has any bearing on

the case.

HIS HONOUR: Well, if there is such a controversy is it

capable of ready determination by a remitter or does it open

up a whole field of factual inquiry?

MR HEENAN: Well, I expect that there would be - - That

depends on the case which the plaintiffs want to put in this regard and, frankly, we have no details of that. But our

position is simple, that we are the sole marketing authority -

11.8.92
Wynnes	HEENAN

EO

03/mf/10.21

MR HEENAN (Continuing): - - - marketing authority, indeed

the sole purchaser of lambs for slaughter and all the lambs which are purchased for slaughter are subject to the · scheme

and the scheme has this defect, so we contend. Now, the

plaintiffs have a case which they have not disclosed to us in

which they take a different view. I don't know whether

they're speaking about some point anterior to lambs being sold

for slaughter or whether - - I don't imagine they're speaking about an illegal market although there is a very small illegal

market which my client prosecutes whenever it can, but on the

essential questions of whether the scheme, as it operates and

as it's designed to operate, affects the bounty or an excise

we find it difficult to see how resolution of this controversy

will have any utility for the case. It may be because we do

not quite understand or do not know what it is that the

plaintiffs are asserting.

HIS HONOUR: Would it be enough for your purposes to assert

the facts to which you have just referred and then to add something to the effect that it is the contention of the first

defendant that by reason of these facts stabilisation of prices is achieved? It still leaves a chink, I suppose, in

the sense that the court might then be asked - - this court

might then be asked to draw an inference.

MR HEENAN:  Your Honour, the situation is that the prices are

set by the commission.

HIS HONOUR: Yes; but stabilisation is a concept that may be a

matter of inference from either agreed facts or proven facts, not something that necessarily speaks for itself. It just

seems to me to be a pity if in the end the concept of

stabilisation was as matter of inference from agreed facts or

facts which are agreed even if they're not presently asserted

in the document, that it should go off for a hearing on that

matter.

MR HEENAN: Well, indeed, your Honour, but there is in this

case stated in other passages which are introductory and

substance of all the matters which I've mentioned, namely, the	following a recitation of all the matters which are - - a
prohibition against sale, considerations taken into effect in setting the prices. My learned friend seems to be contending
that despite the setting of prices by the commission in the way that they are set stabilisation is not achieved. Now, I'm afraid to say that we have not been provided with any reason
by way of argument or facts to support that assertion, and
it's contrary to the instructions that we have.
HIS HONOUR: In the document that is the case stated in its present form, the document that I referred to earlier,
paragraph 19C about a dozen lines down the page, reads:
11.8.92
Wynnes 10
03/mf

"The fixing of prices for lambs payable by the first

defendant by use of the producer price schedule

affects the stabilisation of prices for all lambs

slaughtered in Western Australia."

Now, from your point of view that's the contention upon which you rely?

MR HEENAN: Yes. I don't know whether my learned friend is

contending that there are differences from area to area - there may well be because of transport costs or so on - but the fact of the matter, we contend, is that by operation of the scheme the market is controlled and stabilised and we see it as a matter of the most remote, if any, relevance to undertake a close examination of whether there are marginal

fluctuations from area to area or from time to time.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand that. What I was wondering was

whether it's possible to arrive at a formula which pleads all

the facts upon which both parties rely, I suppose in this area particularly the first defendant relies, and without

necessarily asserting that stabilisation is thereby achieved -

MR HEENAN: Well, we would

HIS HONOUR:	... (voices superimposed) ... express that as a
contention - -
MR HEENAN:	We would be content to say is designed to achieve.
HIS HONOUR:	Well, this is getting close to the expression

that was used earlier on, that the aim is to achieve

MR HEENAN: Well, the trouble, your Honour - -

HIS HONOUR:  Let's not worry about particular words for a

moment. From your point of view it's designed to achieve.

MR HEENAN: Yes, your Honour, but the problem about that is it

throws open an area for argument which we, on the instructions which we have and in the absence of any explanation or evidence, are unable to concede. If it is suggested that it

is not achieved then if we ..... some information in that regard we could consider whether or not it was correct and where it might lead, but the very persistence in the point

indicates that the plaintiffs desire to make some use of an

alleged or arguable imperfection in the scheme.

HIS HONOUR: Well, if the case stated asserted that it was the

aim of the scheme to achieve stabilisation of prices and there

was no contrary assertion by the plaintiffs, there'd still

perhaps be an area of inference but there would be no facts

presumably upon which the plaintiffs could rely to argue

otherwise?

11.8.92

Wynnes 11

o3/mf

MR HEENAN: That may be so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Heenan.

Miss Wheeler, you are keeping a low profile in ... (voices

superimposed) ...

MS WHEELER: And I intend to continue so far as possible, your

Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Dr Schoombee, it is very close, isn't it?

DR SCHOOMBEE: Indeed, and I would certainly go along with

that and because - - really my learned friend keeps on saying

we haven't told him why we object. He raised it in the stated

case the first time it's not pleaded and we put it in black and white at least twice, why we object, because we say that the producers do not obtain - - contrary to what one may expect do not obtain or not guarantee at any stage to obtain the producer price schedule. If they go to a private abattoir

it's a negotiated price. So the producer price schedule does

not stabilise prices in that way and my learned friend in his

argument spoke about stabilisation of markets. We are talking

about stabilisation of prices.

He then said, "Well, we're only looking at the point when

the corporation actually acquires it" and they acquire it to

produce a price schedule - that is, from the abattoirs or from
producers or Robb Jetty. We' re happy with that. With that

fact we' re happy, but really if you read on what is in the

paragraph he then goes back to the producers and that's

obviously the use they're seeking to make of the stabilisation of prices, that is stabilises prices for producers, and it

says so, with respect, in pellucidly clear terms.	If you read
on it says:

"Without existence of a stable price structure

variations in supply to the market during the year

can lead to large prices fluctuations. Such a

situation, if uncontrolled, would make it difficult	for many producers to predict returns and could
produce a lack of confidence and unpredictable
variations in supply."

So it's taken right back to the producer and that's the only sensible operation, because the mere fact that they pay the abattoirs or somebody, Robb Jetty - that's not part of the

same market.

HIS HONOUR: That's another agreement.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR: That's common to - -

11.8.92

Wynnes	12
o3/mf

DR SCHOOMBEE: This is the whole point, exactly so. I would be more than happy to say we agree that they pay at the point

of acquisition as long as we don't say that's an acquisition necessarily from a producer because it isn't. Now, I'm quite
happy to state the facts and then what we've tried to convey

by our version, that it in fact achieves that and - - I'm

quite happy to say that's the aim that's being followed, and

I'm also happy to say that in their opinion it achieves the

aim.

HIS HONOUR:  That surely must be capable of expression in the

case stated - - -

11.8.92
Wynnes	13

EO

pr56b/bi/10.31

HIS HONOUR (Continuing): - - - in the case stated.

DR SCHOOMBEE: I'm not sure, because my learned friend keeps

on saying he doesn't understand my argument, and he says it

has nothing to do with the prior stage, the prior market. But his own case stated - - well, the case put forward takes it

right back to the producers and that's the only sensible

function it can have. It is after all a - -

HIS HONOUR:	I'm not sure that we should spend much more time
on that point

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes, I agree. I agree.

HIS HONOUR: - - because what I envisage is that perhaps at

the end of this maybe we should adjourn the hearing for a

short time until the following matter has been dealt with, or

if necessary, until this afternoon, so that hopefully we can reach some finality in this matter today, whether it's by way of an agreed case stated or at least an order remitting

issues.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, - -

DR SCHOOMBEE:	Sir, I think, with respect, I agree I have
nothing more.
HIS HONOUR:	The matter has been aired.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  What about the second point or second area?

DR SCHOOMBEE: The second area concerns paragraph 28. The other - - My paragraphs 6 and 7 on my documents have already

been taken care of. So it's paragraph 8 in our - - And that

deals with the introduction of the exceptions which in the

exceptions have been listed as to what - - that there are	case we've - - the last two cases we've received, certain
higher sales in the export market. That's paragraph 28 of the case stated - 28(a) at the bottom of page 19, your Honour. It says:

"During the operation of the scheme by the first defendant the domestic lamb market provided predominantly high unit prices."

Well, I'm not sure that everybody will understand what

that means. We would suggest better financial returns and

higher unit prices than the export lamb market." And then it

11. 8. 92

Wynnes 14

EO

pr56b/bi

says:  "But exceptions occur - - " and examples are set out

in annexure 7B.

Now, the way it has been submitted, and we've raised this

objection throughout in our filed objections, is it really gives one - and perhaps it's appropriate to go to that

annexure if that's convenient - -

HIS HONOUR:	Now, which annexure are you speaking of?
DR SCHOOMBEE:	I think it's called 7A now, but it was numbered

- - I' 11 just find what number it was. It's now - - The

easiest way to find it, your Honour, if I may respectfully

suggest, is if your Honour could locate the earlier case, the

25th of June case, because it's simply attached to that.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes; very well.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	And that was

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment, I'll make sure I've - -

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes; 7B it was called. 7B. But if your

Honour finds that - -

HIS HONOUR: That's the bulky collection of documents, is it?

"Draft Materials For Proposed - - "

DR SCHOOMBEE: No, no, no. Sorry, that's the first one. This

is the second major one. It's called, "First Defendant's

Revised Discussion Draft Consolidated Case".	And it's dated
25 June 1992.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes;	I'm getting close I think.	Yes, I have
that.

DR SCHOOMBEE: And if I could take your Honour to the actual

annexure. It's headed "Paragraph 28(a)" and it has a covering

sheet which is in the form of a table. I think that may be

it, your Honour. It's headed "Examples of WA Marketing

Corporation Including Export Sales of Higher Prices than

Domestic Sales."

HIS HONOUR:  Now is this the document that is identified as

annexure 7B in the current - -

DR SCHOOMBEE:	No, it's not.
HIS HONOUR:	- - case stated.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Is it 7B? Yes, it's identified as 7B.

11.8.92

Wynnes 15

pr56b/bi

HIS HONOUR:  But there's agreement, is there not, that that

document is to be part of the case stated?

DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes; but we have an objection as to - -

because this has been submitted to us and we've never been able to check the arithmetic behind this calculation because

it moves from - - the invoices have gross prices, sometimes in

American dollars, and this has been converted to net prices

taking away matters such as freight and the like.

It's certainly our understanding, following discussions,

that you're talking about the net prices, and that's a matter

that has been particularised. We have sent a letter on Friday

to the first defendant asking for particulars and also asking

for copies of all of the invoices he used to supply. For

instance, your Honour, there's an allegation that - - well,

it's set out that in October of 89 some meat was sold to

Belgium at an export price of $10 - - a net price of $10.35 a

kilo. That's in the third column - - sorry the second date

column right at the bottom in the left-hand block. Now, that

is obviously a weight?, but I mean, what volume are you looking at? What is the - - How have they arrived at that price? And when we did a - - on an analogous basis, looked

at subsidy calculations we specified all our details including

any assumptions we've made as to costs and the like. so

really we're not in a position to agree to that. We may well

be if we' re in a position to look at their methodologies.

We've shown them our methodology in suggesting the level of

subsidy, but - -

HIS HONOUR: But it may be one thing to say you are not in a

position to agree with it because it's not accurate, or it may
be another thing to say you're not in a position to agree with

it because it's not complete. I'm not sure what the problem

is.

DR SCHOOMBEE:	The invoices that we - -
HIS HONOUR:	I mean, if the document is accurate as far as it
goes, then the question arises as to whether it goes far

enough I suppose.

DR SCHOOMBEE: We can't say. We' re not in a position to

accept that, because it deals with a price which is - - We're

given only two prices. We' re given the actual sale price

which may be in us dollars and then a price has been worked

out - it's scribbled on the invoice in manuscript - which

reduces that down to Australian dollars and takes away certain

costs.	We have no way of knowing how they've arrived at that.
HIS HONOUR:	Well, is it vital from your point of view that

there be an annexure 7B at all?

11.8.92

Wynnes	16
pr56b/bi
DR SCHOOMBEE:	No, it's not.
HIS HONOUR:	... (voices superimposed) ... had simply - - the

case stated said that exceptions occur.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: But your complaint is that if exceptions are to

be particularised, then the picture should be clearer than it

is at the moment.

DR SCHOOMBEE: That's right. That's right. If it says

exceptions occur, which . . . . . say that there are such

instances of sales at higher net prices in the export market, we're quite willing to accept that. But really if it's merely put in that way as instances rather than that it is operated as a subsidy - - a reverse subsidy during a certain period of

time, then we're happy to limit it to that.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Heenan?

MR HEENAN: Your Honour, we are speaking about an industry in

which there are countless thousands of transactions, and we

are speaking about an economic effect of the operation of that

scheme.

Now, the position at the very heart of the plaintiff's case is that in the aggregate, the economic effect in Wynnes, that sales to the domestic market are at higher prices usually than sales in the export market, and that the surplus is used

to subsidise the export market. Now, we have conceded that,

and that is contained in the papers in the case stated in a

number of places. And that is the foundation for the

contention that there is either a tax or an elicit bounty.

We're simply saying - and we contend it to be the fact - that

that is not the case without exceptions and that on occasions, either because of the particular destination of the lamb or

seasonal conditions or the particular customer or extraordinary quality or some peculiarity in overseas demand,

prices - - individual transactions achieve a situation where

they are sold - - the units are sold at a higher price on the export market than they are on the domestic market. So if

there is a subsidy it flows the other way. And we are simply

giving a number of examples of where this occurs. We don't

contend that it is a predominant or large component, but just

assert that it happens in a number of instances. And we have

put forward this table in response to demands that we should

provide particulars of this as giving examples of where it

occasionally occurs.

HIS HONOUR: Is it not possible to abandon annexure 7B

altogether and simply replace it with a statement of the sort

that you've just enunciated?

11.8.92

Wynnes SCHOOMBEE 17

pr56b/bi

MR HEENAN: Well, we would be content with a statement that on

a number of occasions, comparatively small, units are sold at

higher prices on the export market - - -

11.8.92
Wynnes	17a

atp64/bi/10.41

MR HEENAN (Continuing): - - - on the export market so that the

revenue flows in the other direction but that this constitutes

a minority of instances. We've never had any difficulty with

that. But the sticking point seems to be that the plaintiffs

want to audit each of these transactions and we have provided

in response to the request that we received yesterday further

information and additional invoices, but I'm not - - I'm sorry, we have assembled and we are prepared to give this

additional information, but I'm not sure whether it will satisfy my learned friend's demands. But it seems to us to be

a very minor and peripheral area in the case.

DR SCHOOMBEE: I would have no objection if it's put in that

term subject to one, and that's the question - - I'm not - -

The higher unit prices - - I mean, if your Honour is happy

that the High Court will understand what is meant by that.

That's why we suggested better financial returns and higher unit prices.

HIS HONOUR:	Well, surely that's a matter the parties can
resolve.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  All right. Well, it looks like area 2 is

capable of resolution.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes; if it's put in those terms that my

learned friend said we needn't go through it - -

HIS HONOUR:	What about area 3?
DR SCHOOMBEE:	Just on the question of the formulation of the

actual subsidy point and one which is part of paragraph 28; I

think it is important because this, for instance, impinges on the actual questions raised in the - - the questions of law reserved which are actually modelled on our version in this

respect. At present paragraph (b) says:

returns to producers for like products at like times	"The effect of this scheme is to provide uniform
of the year" - at the top of page 20 - "by way of a
variable level of subsidy in the aggregate by the
domestic market in each year since 1986."

We've changed that formulation somewhat on - - at the top of page 4 of our document simply because we respectfully

suggest that it is more accurate, and it also takes away the implication that the position may have been different since

1986 - if that flows from the reading of the document.

We've already said that the first defendant started in

1986, and now we suggest that since the time they commenced

11.8.92

Wynnes 18

atp64/bi

their administration the effect of the scheme is to provide.

And that's really following the - - To the export market we've

added: "That is to lamb producers on the sale to the first

defendant of lamb products which are thereafter sold in the

export market."

HIS HONOUR:  Well, I'll ask Mr Heenan if there is any problem

with that suggested change.

MR HEENAN:	I'm not sure whether it affects any change, your
Honour.

DR SCHOOMBEE: It's only the little last bit I think, if I

may assist my learned friend: "That is to lamb producers - -"

It	would be where is it actually paid, your Honour.
MR HEENAN:	I think it gets back to the unresolved question

underlying the first issue. And my learned friend has a position that - - I think a little explanation is necessary,

your Honour. Producers are defined in a broad fashion in a

way which includes farmers but excludes abattoir operators.

Now, the importance about a producer is that if there is a

surplus in the operation of the scheme there's a discretionary

power to make a distribution of the surplus rateably to
producers. And that happens each year. Well, not each year but many years. Now, if there is a distributi.on, then it is only the producer who sells to the commission - - I'm sorry, the corporation that participates in the surplus. An abattoir

operator who has purchased from a producer and who in turn

sells to the corporation does not participate in the surplus.

HIS HONOUR:	Is that a fact about which there is likely to be
any
MR HEENAN:	Oh, no, no, we' re agreed on that and it's

reflected in the case stated. But the point appears to be

that all the contentions which deal with the economic effect

of the scheme are sought to be qualified by the plaintiff in

confining their effect to producers.

Now, the plaintiff as part of - - well, the plaintiffs as

part of their case would appear to wish to argue that where a producer - - I'm sorry, that where an abattoir operator buys

from a producer and then sells to the corporation, he does not

participate in a surplus and the economic effect of the scheme

has a different impact on him. Now, we are quite happy for

that distinction to be made and for that point to be

elaborated in argument. And it may well be the case. we have a countervailing argument in relation to that. But the reformulation desired of paragraph 28(b) seeks to confine the operation of the subsidy to lamb producers. And we say that

that's wrong.

11.8.92

Wynnes	19
ato64/bi

HIS HONOUR: Well, if paragraph (b) stopped with the words

"export market" that presumably wouldn't preclude the

plaintiffs from contending that there is a distinction in the

case of sale by abattoirs and sale by producers.

MR HEENAN:  No; and we' re quite happy for that point to be

argued and developed in any way possible. But while it's

pointless having any proprietorial affection to the former

draft we say at least it is a form of words which avoids that

controversy~

HIS HONOUR:	Yes; thank you.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	May I say, we can stop at "market" I would

suggest, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	Very well.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	But can I just say very briefly why we do so,

not to be bloody-minded or for a love for our job, but

HIS HONOUR: Well, if you're in agreement do I need to know.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  No. If we're in agreement then we can accept

our formulation stopping at "market" I'm quite happy.

HIS HONOUR:  Area 3?

DR SCHOOMBEE: And that brings us then to paragraph 29(e) now

which is on page 21, and that's perhaps in a sense the

strangest dispute if one can call it that. At the bottom of

page 21 it is there stated:

"The market equalisation scheme has been widely

considered - - " that's the proposed draft, "while the original as the pleading is read said it is seen by .the first defendant as necessary to ensure and,

etcetera, slaughtered prices such as to provide a

reasonable return."

Now again, we have a question, and we're quite happy to

see that as an aim or as a necessity, but we're certainly not

happy to (a) agree it is a fact or say that somehow we' re

going - - this very wide opinion-poll type terminology has

been widely considered. By whom? The consumers?

HIS HONOUR: Well, the way that it's cast at the moment in the

passive really leaves it pretty much in the air as to what is

meant by it.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes. We're just afraid what can be packed into

it in argument because it's put as a factual matter, not - -

11.8.92

Wynnes 20

atp64/bi

HIS HONOUR:  This is emerging as a fairly unusual case stated.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Well, your Honour, if I may say - -

HIS HONOUR:  There's going to be argument about the facts or

the inferences to be drawn from the facts.

Anyway, Mr Heenan, - -

MR HEENAN:	Your Honour, it is no
HIS HONOUR:	surely this could be met by some more

mutual - -

MR HEENAN: Well, your Honour, it does say - -

HIS HONOUR:  - - ... (voices superimposed) ... neutrality of it

that Dr Schoombee objects to. I suppose he asks that it be

cast in the form of either something that is seen by the first defendant or is intended by the first defendant·or is the aim of the first defendant.

MR HEENAN:	Well, your Honour, paragraph 29 is only a
statement of grounds for an opinion which is held.	That is
the first observation.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes; I see that.

MR HEENAN: Now, insofar as paragraph (e) relates to the

effect of the market equalisation scheme, or the price

equalisation scheme, the historical facts of the matter are

that this was a producer initiative among lamb producers in

Western Australia promoted by their industry organisations

following a poll among their organisations. And there was a

vote expressing the desire to implement such a scheme for these purposes. Acting on that the government at the time - -

11.8.92
Wynnes	21

EO

jr20/mf

MR HEENAN (Continuing}: - - - the government of the time

introduced the scheme expressly for this purpose and some years afterwards there was a referendum by growers which affirmed the retention of the scheme for these purposes. Now,

we say that in Western Australia over these years that is the

community perception of the industry and of the legislative

chambers of parliament. Now, it may or may not be correct and whether it is correct may or may not have a bearing on the

case, but having regard to those circumstances we respectfully

submit that it is strictly accurate and factual to say that it has been widely considered to have this effect and that that

was the reason which led to its introduction.

Now, we acknowledge that there are minority views within the industry, and no doubt the plaintiffs espouse some of those minority or dissenting views, but that does not detract, in our respectful submission, from the existence of a clear majority view about the effect of the scheme.

HIS HONOUR: Is that not met by something along these lines, that the scheme was introduced to ensure that, or does that

not go far enough for your purposes?

MR HEENAN:	Yes, that would meet our requirements, your
Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Have you any problem with that, Dr Schoornbee, where it doesn't assert that it was the - - the aim was

achieved. It's merely then - - is a factor upon which it is

said the first defendant relies for the opinion expressed? I don't tie you to the precise words at the moment but if you're that close then surely you can reach agreement about that?

DR SCHOOMBEE: ... (voices superimposed} ... say that but

certainly I would - - a formulation along those lines, I

think, would

HIS HONOUR: All right.

DR SCHOOMBEE: There are some other smaller points which I
and we can7 discuss that. That really brings us, I think, to	think we can perhaps leave aside if we' re going to adjourn,
the most important area of possibly dispute, which is in
paragraph 12 of our case.
HIS HONOUR:  Which touches, what, on paragraph 37?
DR SCHOOMBEE:  ... (coughing superimposed) ... I would ask for
- I would request that any potential witnesses in this area leave the court because in explicating7 that argument that may
anticipate areas of cross-examination. I have one client here
who is a farmer and I think he' s quite willing to leave the court. I know Mr Burston of the corporation is here and I
think it's appropriate - - Perhaps I could argue or refer you
11.8.92
Wynnes  22

jr20/mf

to this point that he leaves the court because he may well be

cross-examined in this area.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, that's a bit tricky, isn't it? I mean, if

an order were made for witnesses out of court in the course of a trial the parties - - particularly if the party is a

corporation or a commission or some such statutory body,
ordinarily the representative of the body would remain in

court in the same way that the party would remain in court.

And in any event, when we are dealing with an interlocutory

matter am I to make some direction that transcript be not

available to be read?

DR SCHOOMBEE:  No; that's not what I was asking.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that's

DR SCHOOMBEE: It was a more simple request. I'm not saying that my learned friend can't discuss the evidence or anything but just a simple request that given the - -

HIS HONOUR:	My question wasn't related obviously to counsel
reading the transcript.	Of course they can. But is it

suggested that a direction of this sort means that between

now and - - well, there is no trial - - if there is a case

stated that the parties have no access to the transcript of

today's hearing?

DR SCHOOMBEE: No; I didn't envisage that. I simply envisaged

if Mr Burston or whoever wants to follow that course would

then - - that he be - - I would not prohibit that but

HIS HONOUR:	I don't think I should make an order of that
sort - -

DR SCHOOMBEE: Well, as it pleases the court.

HIS HONOUR: - - on a summons, what's basically a summons for direction. If I did make it I don't think it would achieve

acting for a non person would be that somebody representing	anything since I would assume that the response from counsel	the client be permitted to remain in court.
DR SCHOOMBEE: As it pleases the court. We say that what the
first defendant has done in its latest version - and your
Honour would have seen from the draft case stated that the two
versions have set out in full - - that it's taken away the reference to its pleading but its version, and that's the one
that's not been deleted - is really taken directly from its
pleading with certain important - - at least one important
change.
HIS HONOUR: In a case stated - - I mean, what does it
achieve to simply repeat a pleading on either side that the
plaintiff asserts that or the defendant asserts that? It
really achieves nothing, doesn't it?
11.8.92
Wynnes 23
jr20/mf
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes, it does.
HIS HONOUR: And either there has to be some agreement on the
facts that are pleaded or parties have to agree on some alternative formulation.
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Well, exactly, and, I mean, this is our
problem, your Honour. If you take their version of 37 it says:

"The steps taken by the parties or which alternative

should have been taken by the parties - - "

And then it says:

" - - in.compliance with the provisions of Part III

comprise - -"

So it's a really rolled7 up7 version of putting it forward.

It's firstly rolled up by saying at the same time that the

steps either have been taken or should have been taken, so one

is not clear whether any step has actually been taken - -

HIS HONOUR:  Well, that acts to the detriment of the

defendant, surely?

DR SCHOOMBEE: No, with respect. The steps are essential to

our argument that the proper formulation of how the scheme

operates - - because we' re attacking the scheme. We have to

put facts before the High Court so that the High Court, with respect, can understand how the scheme operates and then come

to a conclusion as to, for instance, whether an excise is

imposed.

HIS HONOUR: No. My point is that if the defendant is content

to say no more than that these are the steps which we took or

we should have taken, the. defendant can hardly then assert

that these were steps which were taken. I mean, it's hoist on

its own petard, isn't it, if it's got any relevance as to the

outcome of the matter?

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes, yes. Well, it's still asserting in

compliance with the provisions of Part III of the Act.

HIS HONOUR:  But what it's saying is that these are the things

we ought to have done in compliance with Part III. It leaves

a question mark as to whether they were done or not, and I

would have thought it's not then open to the defendant to say

in argument on the case stated, "We did these things". You
can say no more than, "Well, we either did them or if we

didn' t we should have done .11

11.8.92

Wynnes	24
jr20/mf

DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. Our concern there is just in the way it

has been put, namely, that it simply refers to Part III of the

Act, and let's assume that one can include regulations and

other material before the High Court in looking at it, is that those steps do not appear from that material, but the

important point, and I mean this is - -

HIS HONOUR:  Could I just interrupt you? If it is said the

steps required to be taken in compliance	with the provisions
of Part III comprise, and said no more,	would you have any
worries then?
DR SCHOOMBEE:	No worries at all.
HIS HONOUR:	Would you, Mr Heenan?
MR HEENAN: No, your Honour. The only reason for this	controversy7 appears to be because underlying the plaintiff's
argument there is a residual assertion that the scheme
operates ultra vires but that might - - this formulation might obscure the ultra vires point, but we would be very happy with
that formulation.  ·
HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.
DR SCHOOMBEE: I mean, as I understand it that would be - - I
understand what my learned friend is saying about obscuring the ultra vires point, and that goes to the issue of does it
actually make an allegation of law, but it doesn't. I think
it really says that that's the way the scheme has operated.
HIS HONOUR: Well, no. It says this is the way - - this is
what the Act requires. It says no more than that - that
particular paragraph. Whether one can distil other
allegations from other paragraphs I don't know, but that
doesn't worry you, does it? If the first defendant is content
to abandbn an assertion that it took certain steps or should
have taken them and say no more than that compliance with the
provisions of Part III of the Act comprise - - requires the
following actions or conduct - - -
11.8.92
Wynnes  25

EO

b29/bi/11. 01

HIS HONOUR (Continuing): - - - actions or conduct.

DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Then it is pretty neutral.

DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes.	Yes.	No;	I would certainly be happy
with that.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth,

Dr Schoombee.

DR SCHOOMBEE: No; I'm just thinking ahead of what the Full

Court of the High Court might say when faced with these state

cases because - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, I can assure you, so am I.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes.

MR HEENAN: Your Honour, I wonder if I could ask you to repeat

the formulation that was being discussed, because it's

obviously a matter of some - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, I'm not sure that I can do that, Mr

Heenan. But all I was seeking to do in the light of something

you had said was to take away the assertion that certain steps

had been taken, or should have been taken, and to pose it more

neutrally that in order to comply with the provisions of part

3 of the Act then certain conduct as set out here is required.

That's - -

MR HEENAN: Yes. I accept that it will not be open for us to argue that we did that, but there is nothing in the case

stated which raises any controversy over that.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that may well be.

DR SCHOOMBEE: Just on - - If I may say so with the greatest respect; what I liked about your Honour's formulation was the

use of the word "required". If that is so, then - - Because	that takes away all the ambiguity of whether it has taken
place.
HIS HONOUR:  Well, I'm sure that counsel can resolve that
between them.
DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. As to the actual formulation, your
Honour, we would still say that there are matters in there
which should be addressed.
HIS HONOUR:  What does that mean? What do you mean by
"addressed"?
11.8.92
Wynnes  26
b29/bi
DR SCHOOMBEE:  Within the various steps there is some
controversy; because the first defendant refers to the
position of an owner - if I may just take you to that
paragraph. It's on page 31. "(e) The payment is made to the
owner or abattoir operator." Now, who that owner is and how
that comes about is nowhere explained in the steps. It is
actually accurate to say that certain owners are paid, that
they are the very select - - a very select, tiny group of wholesalers who are really allowed to operate their own
accounts and through the accounts have performed what is
called "service kills". So they actually sel'i to the corporation and they buy back from the corporation.
HIS HONOUR:  But are you suggesting that "owner" may be simply
a misuse of term and it should be "producer"?
DR SCHOOMBEE: No; I'm just saying they'll have to
restructure the steps because there is that category that has
to be taken into consideration.
HIS HONOUR: But if "owner" is meant - and I'm not suggesting
it is - but if "owner" is meant to be "producer", then does
the point disappear?
DR SCHOOMBEE: No. That's precisely the point, your Honour.
It's not the producer. That's the point. That's the crucial
point.  And that's why - - where it is misleading.
HIS HONOUR: Well, is "owner" a term defined in the Act?
DR SCHOOMBEE: No. No, it's not - - Well, in this context it
doesn't bear the meaning of - - that it's "ownership" in the
Act.
HIS HONOUR:  I would imagine that you can resolve that between
you.
DR SCHOOMBEE: Yes. But certainly on - - And there are a number of other issues that we've raised in our - - which if
you compare the two; for instance, the fact that we think it should be explicated, and again it may not be understood by
anybody reading the document, that the first sale which is
referred to in the first subparagraph taking their version:

"The delivery and sale of live lambs by producers to

the operator of an abattoir is usual. The purchase of lambs by the abattoir operator from farms or auctions, etcetera."

But that is done at terms to be agreed between the parties.

That's not at the producer price schedule.

11.8.92

Wynnes	27
b29/bi
HIS HONOUR:	Well, that may well be, but surely counsel can

reach agreement on that.

DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes, okay. Well, we will leave that.
HIS HONOUR:	Does that meet the four areas of concern?

DR SCHOOMBEE: Certainly the major areas as I see them.

HIS HONOUR: What I'm really arriving at now is, in the light

of the discussion that we've had would it be convenient to

simply give counsel an opportunity to see if they can fine

tune some of these matters.

DR SCHOOMBEE: I think, sir, there are some - - Perhaps my

learned friend could indicate - and I could go through our further objections - whether there are any areas where he may see other serious problems arising in the suggestions we've

made.

HIS HONOUR: I think the time could be more profitably spent by counsel, now that the major areas have been aired before the court, but I'm perfectly happy to see you later in the day if it's going to achieve some sort of order.

Mr Heenan, do you feel in a position to respond to that

invitation?

MR HEENAN: Well, your Honour, most of the provisions have

already been - - most of the matters that are referred to in

this memorandum have been incorporated in our draft following

a very lengthy conference last week. I'm not quite sure what

other matters my learned friend contends for. I think - - I

suggest, your Honour, that it would be preferable to leave

this to counsel and if there are any serious differences - -

HIS HONOUR:	Well, I have decided to do that.	Well now, what
do you - -

MR HEENAN:  Perhaps the most important questions, your Honour,

are the questions of formulation.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you mean arising out of the discussion that

has taken place this morning?

MR HEENAN: No; in the case stated, your Honour. I don' t

think there's very much disagreement between the parties as to the formulation of the questions and it's really a matter for

your Honour to consider whether or not they would be

productive.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, what is the suggestion now? What should I

do? Adjourn this matter?

11.8.92

Wynnes 28

b29/bi

DR SCHOOMBEE:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	To later in the day or is that going to give you
enough time?	I can be available later in the week if you

prefer it. But I do urge upon counsel the desirability of an

order of some sort, whether - - Ideally a case - - order by way of case stated or, if the worst comes to the worst, a

remitter of issues. But could that be done by the end of the

week?

DR SCHOOMBEE:  That is certainly, with the greatest respect,

my view as well in the matter that we should

HIS HONOUR:	When would you like to come back?
DR SCHOOMBEE:	I think - - I'm not sure because we've spent a

long time, including a five hour session, and - -

HIS HONOUR:  Sometimes it's better to pursue these matters

while they're running hot.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  Yes. I'm just not sure that we would be able

to do so before this afternoon.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, that doesn't From my point of view it

doesn't matter.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  I can certainly be available on Thursday if

that's suitable to your Honour. It may give us just a little

bit of time and actually to type - - put it in type-written

form as well.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well, Thursday at - - Will we start early in

the morning or - -

DR SCHOOMBEE:  I 'm quite happy to start early if it' s

Shall we make it 9.15?

HIS HONOUR:  I've left you out of this, Miss Wheeler.

MS WHEELER:  Thursday is very convenient, your Honour, but I

would prefer it at 9.30 or later.

DR SCHOOMBEE:  I'm quite happy with 9.30.

HIS HONOUR: All right. We'll adjourn the summons until 9.30

on Thursday the 13th of August.

If before then some document has emerged which you' re able to send me down, well, I might be grateful.	But I
appreciate that may not be possible.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	We will certainly try our best, your Honour.
11.8.92
Wynnes	28a
b29/bi
HIS HONOUR:	Very well.
DR SCHOOMBEE:	May it please your Honour.

HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.30 AM

THURSDAY, 13TH AUGUST 1992

11.8.92
Wynnes	28b