12 Secondly, I consider the defendant should spell out what relief he seeks from the court. I consider that the defendant has a remedy. As previously stated, a prohibition of s 243H amounts to a civil penalty and, if the monies had been paid out to the plaintiffs, then, on a proper application, the court could order the refund of those monies. The sections dealing with civil penalties do not envisage the situation in this case where monies, the subject of the plaintiffs' claim in this action, have not yet been paid out. But I consider the court has implied powers under those sections to make a declaration that, because the agreements are prohibited, the plaintiffs should not recover. I agree with the defendant's submissions on this. An illegal contract is not automatically unenforceable as Yango Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v First Chicago Australia Ltd [1978] HCA 42; (1978) 139 CLR 410 illustrates. But it may be. The court may, in its discretion, choose not to enforce the contract. At least I think that is arguable in this case. I think it arguable that s 103(2), which I have quoted above, and which in essence says that an agreement is not invalid merely because of a contravention of s 243H, means that the agreement is not automatically invalid because of the contravention, but may be if the court so decides. I understand that counsel were unable to find any case on the effect of a prohibited transaction under s 243H.