Trade Practices Commission v. T.N.T. Management Pty Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 19

Federal Court of Australia|1977-07-01|Before: Franki J

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISTON

-and- T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED

ANSETT: TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED

ROADSWIFT TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED Formerly INTERSTATE PARCEL EXPRESS CO. PTY. LIMITED

First Defendant Second Defendant Third Defendant Fourth Defendant

On 25 May 1978 a Statement of Claim was filed by the

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty. Limited ("Ansett")

Eslea Holdings Limited, formerly Ipec Holdings Limited ("Ipec")

Roadswift Transport Pty. Limited, formerly Interstate Parcel Express Co. Pty. Limited ("Interstate PARCEL")

Were the relevant defendants members of the National Freight Forwarders' Association?

The relationship of persons attending the meeting to the relevant defendant and their

Motive (a) Rejection by the Trade Practices Commission of the

application for authorisation to continue its price fixing role

(b) Client disadvantage, the effect of intermediaries and the defendants' perception of this

any ineffectiveness of individual action by a defendant

(ii) Inference of concert from any parallel changes in behaviour of

(E) The requirements for making an arrangement or entering into an understanding

WAS ANY ARRANCEMENT MADE OR UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO AT THE NATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS' ASSOCIATION MEETING HELD ON 20 MAY 1976?

Were the relevant defendants members of the National Freight Forwarders' Association?

The relationship of persons attending the meeting to the

THE CONSTRUCTION OF $.45(2)(a) PRIOR TO 1 JULY 1977

DID ANY RESTRAINT IN THE ARRANGEMENT MADE OR THE UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS HAVE OR WAS IT LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON COMPETITION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS? (A) General (B) The four periods of operations of Tradestock (i) The consulting period (ii) The commission period (iii) The freight forwarding period (iv) The period when Tradestock would not deal with the defendants (C) The degree of competition between the

(D) The submission in relation to any broker market

WAS EFFECT GIVEN TO ANY OF THE THREE ARRANGEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF $.45(2)(b) BEFORE 1 JULY 1977? (A) The construction of s.45(2)(b) before l July 1977 (B) General

WAS EFFECT GIVEN TO ANY OF THE THREE ARRANGEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF $.45(2)(b) and (3) AFTER 1 JULY 1977? (A) The construction of s.45(2)(b) and (3) (B) The issue of substantially lessening competition in any market (i) General (il) Economic evidence

(b) Economic evidence based on assumed facts (c) The role of economic evidence (d) The meaning of "competition" in s.45(2)(b) (ii) and (3) (C) Services for the transportation of goods

(B) The effect of the Trade Practices Amendment Act (1977) upon the proceedings

(D) Would the defendants deal with transport consultants who did not seek commission?

(A) General The proceedings "were brought by the Commission pursuant to s.77 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") for

the recovery of pecuniary penalties referred to in s.76 of the

Act and pursuant to s.80 of the Act for the grant of injunctions.

The defendants carried on freight forwarding activities. The first three defendants appear to be as large or larger than any other freight forwarders in Australia. in general, the defendants offered to carry goods to all or most States, often by a variety of means, for example, road, rail or

Tradestock Pty. Limited ("Tradestock" ) was incorporated in 1975 and commenced shortly thereafter to carry on what can be described broadly as the business of transport consultants seeking a fee from the client for its advice. Later its business changed to one in which it sought its remuneration by way of commission from the freight forwarder with whom it placed its business. In the early stages of its history Tradestock operated under the name T.I.C. Management Consultants.

A Mr Frewen, who was in the witness box for 49 days, was the

managing director of Tradestock and a Mr Stock, who played a

significant part in the operations of Tradestock, was a director.

In substance, it is alleged by the Commission that the defendants were parties to one or more of three arrangements or understandings, each in breach of s.45(2)(a) of the Act. It is alleged that arrangements were made or understandings were entered into by various defendants that they would not negotiate with, furnish quotations to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise deal with Tradestock, or any other agent and/or broker, in respect of the carrying or forwarding of freight, or the arranging for the carrying or forwarding of freight, proposed or sought by Tradestock or any other agent and/or broker, for or on behalf of persons seeking the services of such defendants or any of them for the carrying or forwarding of freight or the arranging for the carrying or forwarding of freight through Tradestock or any other agent and/or broker. It is alleged that the arrangements were made or the understandings entered into at meetings held on 12 February, 20 May, and 4 August 1976 of a body called the National Freight Forwarders' Association.

The precise nature of the allegations will be dealt with more fully later. It is also alleged that the arrangements or understandings were given effect to in breach of s.45(2)(b) of

the Act. The Act was amended in a way which falls for

consideration by Act No. 81 of 1977 which came into operation on

The case was fought with extreme determination. Interlocutory proceedings occupied some 60 days before a single Judge of this Court and some 20 separate judgments were given in respect of these interlocutory applications. Five appeals were brought to the Full Court of this Court from certain of these judgments. Three applications were made for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the judgments of the Full Court. Of these one was refused, one apparently was not proceeded with and the third was granted although the appeal was unsuccessful. No appeal was brought by the Commission. At the time these interlocutory appeals were instituted, an appeal lay as a right to the Full Court but the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 has been amended since by adding a s.24(1A) which provides that an appeal should not be brought from an interlocutory judgment

When these proceedings were instituted, this Court was operating under Statutory Rules 20 and 220 of 1977. These rules, in substance, applied the rules of the High Court. An interlocutory application was made by the second defendant that the matter proceed under the Federal Court Rules, which came into operation on 1 August 1979 (Statutory Rules 140 of 1979). This application was made pursuant to order 64 rule (1) of those

rules. All defendants other than the second defendant opposed

the application arguing that the proceedings were of a quasi~criminal nature and they anticipated suffering some disadvantage if the order was made. On 8 May 1981 I decided that, because of the nature of the proceedings, I would not

change the rules under which the proceedings were to be heard.

Although I suggested on a number of occasions that use should be made of the provision in order 31 of the High Court Rules for - a - summons - for - directions,--neither the plaintiff nor any defendant accepted my suggestion. This was unfortunate because I feel that, had some of the problems received attention as a result of a summons for directions, at least some reduction in

The evidence occupied 173 days and the addresses 32 days. In addition, the parties gave me certain written submissions. The submissions for the Commission extended over about 700 pages, those for the first defendant over about 1400, those for the second defendant over about 800, those for the third defendant over about 500, those for the sixth defendant over about 200, those for the seventh defendant over about 15, and those for the eighth and ninth defendants over about 50. In addition, the first defendant sought to tender a further 600 pages in relation to facts which two expert economists had been asked to assume. I declined to accept this further material upon the basis that the mere obligation to read or to decide whether

or not to read such a mass of material in addition to the

material already tendered by the first defendant was an unreasonable burden to impose on a Judge. Thereafter, senior counsel for the first defendant provided me with a list of page references to the transcript in relation to the assumed facts

which apparently had been dealt with in the last mentioned 600

Every point which could possibly be raised concerning the admissibility of evidence appears to me to have been taken and I provided some 40 rulings on the admissibility of

evidence during the hearing. The majority of these were in writing, copies of which were given to the parties. Some of these rulings have mow been published ((1984) A.T.P.R. 40-483 at pp.45,531 to 45,586). Four senior counsel and seven junior counsel were in Court most of the time and from time to time

other counsel appeared. 105 witnesses were called. The

interlocutory applications extended over more than 2000 pages of transcript and the hearing over 16,000 pages. In addition, about

Extensive amendments were allowed without serious opposition, to the defences after the hearing had proceeded for

about 70 days. On the 203rd day of the hearing the Commission

sought to amend para. 32 of its Statement of Claim but I rejected

It is hardly an exaggeration to say, in general, that every possible argument that the ingenuity of counsel could

It will be seen from the extent of the evidence and submissions that it would be ridiculous to do other than deal

with the evidence and submissions which have been made in what I regard as a practical way. If I have not directed attention to any particular evidence it is because I regard it as of minor importance. Likewise, if I have not dealt with a particular submission, it is because I do not regard it as being of overall significance. I have adopted the practice of referring to submissions by defendants generally without identifying the particular defendant, except where necessary, because, in general, the defendants adopted the submissions of those who addressed before them. In some instances reference will be made

to a corporation by a short name and not by its full name.

The first issue for determination is whether the arrangements or any of them were made or the understandings or

any of them were entered into by the defendants in contravention

The next issue is whether any arrangement or understanding proved to have heen made or entered into was given

effect to before 1 July 1977 in breach of 5.45(2)(b) or after 1

July 1977 in breach of s.45(2)(b)(i) or (ii) of the Act which was

It is desirable to refer at this stage to proceedings commenced by Tradestock in 1976. On 17 December 1976 proceedings seeking, inter alia, damages were started in the Victorian Registry of this Court by Tradestock against a number

of companies including certain of the defendants in the present

On 2 May 1977 Smithers J. gave judgment in an application by certain defendants in that action for an order that the proceedings be stayed pending provision by the plaintiff for security for costs of the defendants making the application. An order was granted staying the action against the applicants until security for costs was provided was granted. (Tradestock

Pty. Ltd. v. T.N.T. Management Pty. Ltd. (1977) 30 F.L.R. 343; (1977) 1 A.T.P.R. 40-046).

On 27 January 1978 Smithers J. gave judgment on an application by Tradestock, which had been unable to provide the security for costs required by the stay granted on 2 May 1977, in which it sought a removal of the stay based on fresh evidence ((1978) 32 F.L.R. 420; (1978) 1A.T.P.R. 40-056). The fresh evidence included minutes of N.F.F.A. meetings of 4 March 1969,

12 February 1976, 20 May 1976, and 4 August 1976 and evidence of

telephone conversations including conversations of 26 July 1976 by Frewen or Stock of Tradestock with a Mr Gardiner identified in the judgment as of Interstate Parcels Express Co. Pty. Limited, a telephone conversation with a Mr Shortell identified as of T.N.T. Management Pty. Ltd. and a third telephone conversation with a Mr Wilkins identified as of Youngs Transport Pty. Limited. His Honour ultimately removed the stay in relation to all but certain

In deciding the case now before me in which the evidence is undoubtedly much more extensive than that before Smithers J., I have had the benefit of his Honour's judgments which were referred to quite extensively by various parties. Inevitably, because of the difference in the material before me to that before Smithers J. and in the arguments presented,

differences in the conclusions reached must be expected,

WAS ANY ARRANGEMENT MADE OR UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO AT THE NATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS' ASSOCIATION MEETING HELD ON 12

FEBRUARY 19767? Para. 21(1) of the Statement of Claim is as follows:

"21-(-1-} - -9n - _or - about - 12.- February 1976 the first, second, third, fourth and fifth-named Defendants and each of then made an arrangement and/or entered into an understanding whereby they and each of them agreed and/or decided:-

(a) that such Defendants and each of them would not negotiate with, furnish quotations to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise deal with, T.I.C. Management Consultants or any other agent and/or broker, in respect of the carrying or forwarding of freight, or the arranging for the carrying or forwarding of freight, proposed or sought by T.I.C. Management Consultants or any other agent and/or broker for or on behalf of persons seeking the services of such Defendants or any of them for the carrying or forwarding of freight or the arranging for the carrying or forwarding of freight through T.I.C. Management Consultants or any other agent and/or broker; and/or

(b) that such Defendants and each of them would only negotiate with, furnish quotations to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise deal with, persons seeking the services of such Defendants or any of them. for the carrying or forwarding of freight or the arranging for the

carrying or forwarding of freight, direct, and would not negotiate

with, furnish quotations to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise deal with, such persons or any of

The choice of the words "and each of them" in the Statement of Claim is, in my opinion, for more abundant caution so that the Commission would not fail if the allegation is only established against certain of the defendants referred to in the

(A) The minutes of the meeting and their confirmation ata

(B) Oral evidence of witnesses who were called of what took

(a) Rejection of the N.F.P.A. application for authorisation to continue its price fixing role.

(b) Client disadvantage, the effect of intermediaries and the defendants' perception of this.

(d) The awareness of ineffectiveness of individual action.

Tt was also submitted by the Commission that the principles in Tripodi v. The Queen (1961) 104 C.L.R. 1 were applicable and a number of other principles supported an inference that the arrangements were made or the undertakings

In addition to the persons recorded in the minutes, a Mr W.A. Levitt, now working with the Department of Motor Transport, attended. In 1976 and for many years previously, Levitt as the executive director of a road transport federation of which the N.F.P.A. was a division had prepared the minutes of the meetings of the N.F.F.A.. Of those who attended the meeting of 12 February 1976 the Commission called only Levitt. The first defendant called a Mr Prebble, the third defendant a Mr Uniacke

and a Mr Price and the fifth defendant a Mr Wise. No explanation

February 1976, which were admitted on one basis or another, are:

The relevant parts of the minutes of the meeting of 12

Wynyard House, Sydney, at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12th February 1976.

PRESENT : Chairman - Mr G.C. Uniacke Mr J. Wise - Ansett Freight Express Mr Jd. Linfoot - Brambles Long Distance Transport. Mr M.G. Davies ) - Mayne Nickless Ltd. Mr J. Price )

Mr R.E. Heasman ) Mr J. Gouldstone) - T.N.T./Altrans Ltd.

The Chairman welcomed Members to this the first Meeting of the New Year and reminded

Members that it had long been customary for the Chairman to maintain an impartial role and

the organisation he represented to nominate a person to represent the Company. The Chairman

advised that Mr. M.G. Davies would be the Mayne Nickless representative.

ll. T.2.C. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS. It was noted that the above Organisation had made approaches to several Transport

Companies for quotes for freight movement for various other organisations.

Similar 'Transport Brokerage Agencies' had appeared in the Industry at various times in the past and previous experience

showed that it was better for the Client and Operator to deal direct."

The minutes were confirmed at the meeting of 23 March 1976 at which the first five defendants, inter alia, were

I consider that the minutes are the best evidence of What took place. There was extensive argument about whether the

minutes were admissible. There was a considerable amount of evidence concerning the weight to be given to what was recorded in the minutes. A Mr Shortell, a director of T.N.T., said in relation to an event in December 1974, "If it is in the minutes I presume it did take place ... if it is in the minutes I presume it is a true record". A Mr Prebble, who about 1975 became the

Australian General Manager of T.N.T. Transport System, said that, apart from entries concerning Tradestock in the minutes of the

February and May meetings, he could not recollect any specific

incidents of inaccuracy that particularly worried or concerned

him and that he did not intend to suggest that the minutes were

normally inaccurate. Mr Redpath, the chairman of Mayne Nickless,

who was also chairman of the N.F.F.A. for several years before 1971, said of certain of the minutes in 1979, "I have no reason

to think these minutes are not an accurate record".

I dealt with the admissibility of the minutes in rulings I gave on 14 and 23 November 1983 and, so far as concerns the minutes of the February meeting, I admitted those against all the five defendants - on-thefottowing - grounds: (a) Against all persons as business records to the extent to which they contained statements of fact ("the business record ground"); and (b) Against each defendant that was a member of the N.F.F.A. by virtue of the chairman's signature at the succeeding meeting of the minutes as a true record of the previous meeting ("the membership ground"); and (c) Against each defendant present at a subsequent meeting at which the minutes of the prior meeting were confirmed

whether or not the defendant was represented at the earlier meeting and whether or not the defendant is shown to

There is evidence which I accept that the minutes of the February meeting were confirmed at a meeting on 23 March 1976 at which Heasman, Linfoot, a Mr Robinson, Uniacke, M.G. Davies, N. O'Brien and Wise attended. I am also satisfied that there is some evidence that the minutes were circulated and received by

Evidence was given by Levitt about the manner in which he prepared the minutes. He said that during the currency of the meeting he would take notes of the decisions reached, agreements made or consensus arrived at and that he normally translated his notes into something more formal (meaning the minutes) and sent a copy to the chairman seeking his approval and thereafter he would duplicate the minutes and send a copy to each member. He said it was his practice to record every matter that was discussed at the meeting. He said, "I thought that the correct way to keep the minutes was to record the resolutions, rather than the reasons, Or the synopsis". He also agreed that he did not draw a distinction between things that were resolved on the one hand and things that were discussed or agreed and that he did not note verbal statements made by any particular person. He also said that meetings were quite informal. He said that minutes which he prepared and recorded in the minute book were, to the best of his

knowledge and belief, correct, that at no time had anybody

indicated to him that the minutes in the year 1976 were nota

correct record and that he could never recall anyone seeking to

correct any minute during the time he prepared then. He said that if anything in the minutes was in brackets that indicated that it happened not during but after the meeting. He said that it was not the practice to count votes at a meeting but normally the chairman asked if anybody disagreed with whatever was the

. Whether the relevant defendants were members of the N.F.F.A. The relationship of the persons attending the meeting and the relevant defendant.

. Whether the persons attending the meeting were able to

. (ii) Were the relevant defendants members of the National Freight Forwarders' Association?

Exhibits KD and KN are the rules of N.F.F.A. adopted in 1973. KD was admitted against the first, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth defendants and I am satisfied that KN was established

to be the rules of the N.F.F.A. at that date. There is no

suggestion that there was any relevant alteration in the rules

between the date of adoption and 1976. Rule 3(b) provides:

"The following Companies together with subsidiaries under their control shall at the establishment of the Association be members:"

The following names appear, inter alia, in the list of members: Ansett Freight Express A.U.T. Holdings Limited Brambles Holdings Limited

Ipec Australia Limited Mayne Nickless Limited Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited

"Each member shall appoint a representative who will be the Chief Executive of the Company or an appointee who will be authorised to speak for and to commit his Company."

Membership was admitted on the pleadings. In addition, I am satisfied that this was so because the first defendant was a

wholly owned subsidiary of Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited.

It is also relevant to note that there is evidence that

the first defendant received circulars from the N.F.F.A. and

The Second Defendant: Although strenuous efforts were made to object to

questions directed to establishing that the second defendant was

a member, the rules show it was a foundation member in 1973 and I

accept from that that it was a member in 1978. In addition, at

one stage of the addresses, senior counsel for the second defendant offered a concession, namely that he was prepared to admit that the Commission had proved that Brambles Holdings was a member of the N.F.F.A. at the relevant times if some admission was made by the Commission about the number of subsidiaries of certain defendants. This further admission was not forthcoming

I am satisfied that the second defendant was a member.

Mayne Nickless Limited was named as a foundation member in the 1973 rules and, although not admitted in the pleadings, membership was subsequentiy conceded by senior counsel for the

third defendant. I am satisfied that it was a member.

The Fourth Defendant: Membership was admitted in the pleadings. However, some question arises because apparently the fourth defendant was not

The rules show Youngs Transport Agency as a foundation

member. The business name Youngs Transport Agency was owned by two individuals named Wilkins and Beasley between 17 July 1973

and 2 March 1976. The fourth defendant took over the business

formerly conducted by Wilkins and Beasley and continued to

conduct it as Youngs Transport Agency with no change in

operations until it was taken over by the third defendant as from

Because of the admission in the pleadings I treat it as being a member for the purposes of the proceedings against it, but membership has not been proved so far as that issue may

Membership was not admitted in the pleadings but Ansett Freight Express was an original member and this was the business name of the defendant in 1973 and thereafter. I am satisfied it

(iii) The relationship of persons attending the meeting to the relevant defendant and their ability to commit it

Heasman held the position of Executive Director, T.N.T. Transport System Freight Division, and was Prebble's immediate superior and immediately below Shortell. On 7 January 1975 he signed a letter to the Trade Practices Commission on behalf of

T.N.T. as Executive Director, General Freight Services.

Prebble, as I have said, was the Australian General

Manager of T.N.T. Transport System at the relevant time.

Brambles' counsel adopted the policy of raising and arguing every question of law and objecting to and, so far as I would allow, arguing the admissibility of every question remotely

It chose to call no witness other than a lady, Marilyn

Sloane. She said that in 1974 she had been employed with

Brambles Sea Cargo which she said was one of the divisions of

Brambles Holdings. However, there seemed to be some doubt

"Brambles" and "Brambles Long Distance Transport" had both been registered for years before 1976 as business names of the second defendant. These registrations continued at all relevant times. In 1981 Linfoot signed an application for the registration of the business name Brambles Long Distance Transport as General Manager of -the second defendant. Linfoot had attended N.F.F.A. meetings in 1974 and 1975 and and it seems

to mea reasonable inference that N.F.F.A. circulars had been

sent to an organisation called Brambles Long Distance Transport.

A Mr Tan Wood had had business relationships with Linfoot. They were clearly employed in the same organisation. Linfoot was superior to Wood. Wood first met Linfoot at

Linfoot's office in Acacia Ridge, Brisbane, in 1973. That office

had the name "Brambles Long Distance Transport, Acacia Ridge"

outside it and it was the largest in the building. Wood attended a conference with Linfoot and a Mr Williams in Brisbane at which various job positions were discussed. From about the middle of 1974 onwards Wood said he met Linfoot approximately once every two months. He said that Linfoot had an office at Nudgee Road, Brisbane, in a building which bore the notation outside "Brambles Transport and Plant Hire Division" or very similar words. From time to time he got instructions from Linfoot at Goldfields House, Sydney, which bore outside the notation "Brambles Industries Limited", together with the words "Head Office" or "Registered Office". It appears that in July 1974 Linfoot was working with a firm which he described as G.W. Chaplin and

Uniacke had acted as the chairman of meetings of the N.F.F.A. and a representative of Mayne Nickless where need arose for anumber of years prior to 1976 and was avery senior executive. He said that he was the chief representative of Mayne Nickless for the N.F.F.A. M.G. Davies and John Price also attended the meetings. Davies was a senior executive and when

Uniacke went to New Zealand in 1976 he handed over his

The Fourth Defendant: There is not much evidence in relation to N. O'Brien

but, because of the admission in the pleadings, the name Young

Transport Agency appearing as a foundation member in the N.F.F.A. rules and O''Brien's name appearing in the minutes with Young Transport against it, Iam satisfied of his authority to speak for and commit the fourth defendant but only as against the

Wise was General Manager of Ansett Freight Express in 1976 and responsible for all its operations. He attended the

N.F.F.A. meetings at least during 1974, 1975 and 1976.

It was suggested by the second defendant that, since 1t had not been shown that the persons attending the meeting were specifically authorised to make any arrangement or enter into any understanding, they could not bind the companies whom they represented. The second defendant did not shrink from the submission that, if a board of directors passed a resolution and circulated it to the senior executives, to the effect that under no account must any breach of the Trade Practices Act take place, the company would be adequately protected and could not be in breach of the Act for any conduct of an employee. One has only to state this proposition to realise that it must be rejected immediately. However, because of the extensive argument that was

presented on this issue, I do not feel that course is open to me.

question of the capacity of a servant or agent to bind a company.

That case went even further than is necessary for the

determination of whether the persons attending the meeting had

sufficient authority to bind the relevant defendants because it

dealt with an admission by the manager of a company who had the

general authority to act in and in relation to the business of

the company. It was said by Latham C.J. at p.113 that, since he

the manager could not bind the company by an admission, no one else could do so". I will deal further with the question of admissions.

The Commission also relied on s.84(2) of the Act. This

"Any conduct engaged in corporate by a director, the body corporate or by the direction or with the (whether express or

agent or servant of the be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in alsa by the body

occasions, most recently by Toohey J. ain T.P.C. v. Mobil Oil

Australia Ltd. (1984) A.T.P.R. 40-482 at p.45,520. It was also

discussed by Toohey J. in T.P.C. v, Tubemakers of Australia Ltd. (1983) 5 A.T.P.R. 40-358 at pp.44,326-44,328 where an analysis of

the earlier cases was made and reference was made to the judgment

of Morling J. in T.P.C. v. Queensland Aggregates Pty. Ltd. (1982)

61 F.L.R. 52 at p. 66; (1982) 4 A.T.P.R. 40-297 at p.43,698 where his Honour said that it "... appears to disclose a legislative intention to extend, rather than limit, the liability of corporatiions for the actions of others". It seems clear that

s.84(2) is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (1528 paragraphs)

Cited By (3)