CATCHWORDS Trade practices - Consumer protection - Conduct likely to "mislead or deceive" - Use of partly descriptive trading name - Interlocutory injunction - Trade Practices Act 1974, ss.52,53(c) & 80. UNITED TELECASTERS SYDNEY LTD. v. PAN HOTELS INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD. & ANOR. G88 of 1978 Coram: Franki J. Sydney, 8 September 1978 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 88 of 1978 GENERAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF The Trade Practices Act 1974 UNITED TELECASTERS SYDNEY LIMITED Applicant PAN HOTELS INTERNATIONAL PTY. LIMITED First Respondent MAX MARKSON Second Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 8 September 1978. FRANKI J. On the afternoon of 16 August 1978 an order to show cause was granted to United Telecasters Sydney Limited (the applicant) returnable the next afternoon. The crder to show cause sought certain injunctions under s.80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") in relation to the conduct of a discotheque which it was alleged contravened ss.52 and 53(c) of the Act. The injunctions sought against the first respondent, Pan Hotels International Pty. Limited, were to prohibit it from : (a) conducting a business of a discotheque or nightclub uncer a name, using a graphic device, or using a decor or otherwise in such a manner as to suggest that (i) the said discotheque or nightclub oe a nr NT OLR TET fp HOT (b) (c) is one which has any connection with the discotheque or nightclub depicted on the television show "Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo", (ii) the said discotheque or nightclub is one which has any connection with the discotheque or nightclub depicted in the film "Thank God It's Friday". (iii) the said discotheque or nightclub is one which has any connection with radio station 25M. Continuing to use the name "The Zoo" with respect to the discotheque or nightclub Situated at Bayswater Road, Kings Cross, without clearly distinguishing the said discotheque or nightclub from that depicted on the television show "Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo" and in the film "Thank God It's Friday". Continuing to use a particular graphic design for the words "The Zoo". Advertising the said discotheque or nightclub in such a manner as to lead people to think that they are to receive tickets to the movie "Thank God It's Friday" when they are not to so receive them. The applicant sought to restrain the second respondent, Mr. Max Markson, from aiding, abetting, counsell-— ing, procuring oy engaging in certain other activities, in relation to acts included in the prohibitions sought against -3- the first respondent. Interlocutory relief was sought on the return day. The first respondent was the lessee of an hotel at Kings Cross and at 7.30 on the evening of the return day of the order to show cause it was due to open a discotheque,called "The Zoo", in the hotel. The second respondent had been engaged by the first respondent to conduct the discotheque on its behalf. On the return day of the order to show cause the applicant also sought to prevent the opening of the discotheque under the name "The Zoo". Before the adjournment of the proceedings on the afternoon of the return day the respondents offered to give and gave certain undertakings and the matter then proceeded on the following Friday and Monday. The respondents continued their undertakings thereafter, and offered to continue them until the final hearing of the matter or further order. Since this judgment is only in relation to an application for interlocutory injunctions I do not express any detailed or concluded views on the evidence relating to the issues in dispute. It is necessary for me to decide whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case within the meaning of that expression as used in Beecham Group Limited v. Bristol Laboratories Pty. Limited (1968) 118 C.L.R. 618 and, if it has, then to decide whether, in the words of s.80(2), it is desirable to grant such an injunction. Somewhat similar issues were considered by the High Court in Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd. (1978) 18 A.L.R. 639,by the Full Court of this Court in World Series Cricket Pty. Limited v. Parish (1977) 16 A.L.R. 181 . -4- and to some extent by me in Weitmann v. Katies Ltd. (1977) 29 F.L.R. 336. It has not been necessary for me to assess the truth of the evidence given by any of lhe witnesses who swore affidavits, or gave oral evidence, and much of the evidence was of a non-controversial nature. A motion picture called "Thank God It's Friday", 'which was apparently produced in the United States of America, and which appears to have been filmed largely in a discotheque in Los Angeles and which bore the name "The Zoo", was being exhibited in Sydney at the time the proceedings before me were commenced. No evidence was given to me from which it was possible to draw any conclusion,even in consideration of whether a prima facie case has' been shown, of what precise connection, if any, and if it be relevant, the producers of the motion picture had with the discotheque in Los Angeles, The applicant conducts a television station, Channel 10, in Sydney and according to the affidavit of Mr. Cooper, employed by it, the general manager of the applicant was approached by a Mr. McCabe on behalf of Lyle McCabe Productions Pty. Limited and Paradine Inc. with a proposal whereby a business carried on by Lyle McCabe Productions Pty. Limited and Paradine Inc. called McCabe-Paradine Productions would produce 13 episodes of a television series entitled "Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo", The affidavit proceeds that the television series was intended to be based upon the film called "Thank God It's Friday". There was evidence that the proposal to produce the television series was accepted and that McCabe-Paradine Productions was producing the television series on behalf of the applicant. There -5- was also evidence of the registration on 14 June 1978 by Mr. McCabe of the busincss names "Thank God It's Friday Disco Show" and "The Zoo Discotheque Nightclub". Mr. Cooper also said in his affidavit that : "For the purpose of producing the television series the Applicant has built the biggest set it has ever constructed, at a cost of many thousands of dollars. The set is a re-creation, from design drawings, of 'The Zoo' in Los Angeles. The decor of 'The Zoo' is quite distinctive. It contains large silver palm trees, and various jungle animals (including two life size camels, and moving snakes). It has associated with it a bar called 'The Snake Bar', the main supports of which are in the form of pythons which revolve. The waitresses at 'The Zoo' wear leopardskin leotards." The first edition of the television show was recorded at the appli ant's Sydney studios on Saturday 12 August 1978 and was telecast on Monday 14 August 1978. The applicant tendered a letter dated 21 July 1978 from a gentleman called Chuck Ashman, on the letter-— head of Casablanca Record and FilmWorks, Inc., whose Iain office according to the letterhead was at Los Angeles, to a Mr. Martin Blau at Columbia Pictures International in New York which read : "Dear Marty: This will confirm our various conversations and on behalf of Casablanca Record and FilmWorks, Inc., authorization for use of the title, 'THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY AT THE ZOO' for Australian T.V. We expect no compensation of any kind for this license." What position Mr. Ashman held or what authority he sought to exercise in*writing the letter did not appear. Again what precise relationship Casablanca Record and FilmWorks Inc. had with the film "Thank God ~ 6 ~ It's Friday" or what were the nature of the rights, in Australia, if any, which it had in the Litle "Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo" was not the subject of evidence. The applicant also tendered a letter from a Mr. Guy Scott on the letterhead of Columbia Pictures Proprietary Limited (incerporated in N.S.W.) who is described on the letterhead as advertising and publicity director. The letter was dated 15 August 1978 written to Mr. Lyle McCabe and read : "Dear Lyle, Please find attached the letter requested from Casablanca. As it states, it confirms our phone conversations of the past few days giving you their approval on the use of the title 'THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY AT THE ZOO' for your T.V. show. From what New York tells me, they were enthusiastic in giving this approval to yourself because of the advantage in promotional pointers the T.V. programme can give to our film 'T.G.1.F.* and it's sound track albun. To ensure that everything goes well from both our points of view, I will make sure that Columbia Australia does not give approval to anybody else in the use of our film title. Good luck in your upcoming project. Kind regards," It is not clear what was the precise relationship between Columbia Pictures International and Columbia Pictures Proprietary Limited. Mr. Markson said in evidence that in or about the middle of May 1978 he conceived the idea of calling the discotheque "The Zoo" and at that time he did not know anything about the proposed Channel 10 show or the Los Angeles discotheque. Tt appears from the evidence of Mr. Cooper that Channel 10 was not approached by Mr. McCabe about the -7- television show until about the end of the first week in July. By the end of June Mr. Markson said he had presented a feasibility study to the first respondent and that he had suggested that the discotheque be called "The Zoo" and also that a disc jockey from Radio Station 2SM should ~ be employed every Thursday as a key point to the whole promotion campaign. He proposed to use a different disc jockey each week. In making his recommendation Mr. Markson said he drew on recent experience which he had had in England in connection with discotheques. The respondents proceeded to have the discotheque furnished and decorated and a publicity campaign was commenced. It appears that this publicity commenced about 9 August 1978, and was directed to the opening of the respondent's discotheque on Thursday 17 August 1978. It was said that about $2,000 was spent in fitting out the discotheque and in advertising and according to Mr. Markson, the interior of the discotheque was not at all like the discotheque shown in the film, On 9 August 1978 an article appeared in a newspaper circulating in Sydney, in a column of a Mr. Lee Bottrell, announcing as what appeared to be a news item, the opening of the respondents' discotheque called "The Zoo", That morning Mr. Markson said a Mr. Luxford, whom he did not previously know, telephoned him and said that his name was Mike Luxford from the publicity department of Columbia Pictures, that he had seen the article in the newspaper and that he would give Mr. Markson 12 double passes to the movie "Thank God It's Friday" to be given away on the opening night of the discotheque and that he would supply some other promotional material. Discussion -8- took place about the possibility of having a "Thank God It's Friday Roadshow Week". Mr. Markson said that he made some arrangement with Mr. Luxford to have the roadshow week and that he received later about 50 posters from Mr. Luxford. Mr. Markson said that Mr. Luxford appeared impressed with the idea that the posters Mr. Markson proposed to have displayed around Sydney for the roadshow would provide beneficial publicity for the picture. Mr. Markson also said that Mr. Luxford suggested that he contact a Mr. Hilary Mellick who was in charge of promotion and publicity for Astor Records which appeared to be involved in the distribution of records of the sound track of "Thank God It's Friday". Mr. Markson said he did this are Mellick said that he would provide records for him for a "Thank.God It's Friday Roadshow Week". Mr, Markson said that he later received a number of records. It also appears that Mr. Markson may have adopted the particular "logo" used in the word "Zoo" because of the conversation with Mr. Luxford. Mr. Meagher, one of the solicitors for the applicant, said that Mr. Scott, the publicity director of Columbia Pictures in Australia, had told him that Columbia Pictures had the exclusive rights to the film "Thank God It's Friday" and that Columbia Pictures had not given any licence or permission to either of the respondents to show the film "Thank God It's Friday" or to use the expression "Thank God It's Friday" and that Mr. Scott had said there was no connection between Columbia Pictures and the respondents. Mr. Markson said he had a further conversation with Mr. Luxford on 17 August 1978 when Mr. Luxford said, in effect, that he could not let him have the tickets for Fr re ee ee ert a I TR ri —_ -9-+ the film or other promotional material because of the court case involving Channel 10 and that he, Mr. Luxford, apparently had been caught between two forces and he did not want to create any fuss. Mr. Dennis, the respondents' solicitor, gave evidence that on 17 August 1978 he had telephoned 'Columbia Pictures in Sydney and spoken to Mr. Luxford who had been described to him by the telephone operator as an executive. Mr. Luxford said he was in the publicity department and had just finished being in j charge of the promotion of "Thank God It's Friday" and that the material he had given to Mr. Markson had been to promote the picture. It seems that the picture commenced showing in Sydney on 11 August 1978 and that some pubiicity had taken place before that date, the nature of which was not in evidence. On 9 August 1978 Mr. McCabe's solicitors sent a letter to Mr. Markson complaining of the use of the name "The Zoo" and threatening proceedings in this Court. The first publicity for the television program had appeared in the press on 18 June 1978. No mention was made of "The Zoo" in it but two overseas discotheques "Studio 54" and "Annabels" were mentioned and a tentative title for the show of "Disco Connection" was also mentioned. It is fair to say that the newspaper publicity was directed to the nature of the program and no relevant use of the words "The Zoo" appears before about 4 August 1978. On 6 August 1978 a picture purporting to be of "The Zoo" discotheque in Los Angeles appeared in a Sydney newspaper. Radio and television advertising by the applicant took place between 11 and 14 August 1978 and the first telecast ~10- of the show took place on 14 August 1978. The precise nature of Uhe radio and television advertising was not pefore me but there was evidence of posters for the program described as "T,.V. disco show" and "Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo" having been sent to various discotheques on 9 August 1978. There was also evidence of other advertising since 4 October 1978 relating to the show. Section 52 of the Act provides : "(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. (2) Nothing in the succeeding provisions of this Division shall be taken as limiting by implication the generality of sub-section (1). In my opinion the following points relating to the construction of s.52 of the Act emerge from the judgments of the High Court in Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd. - (1978) 18 A.L.R. 639 : 1. The section is concerned with conduct which is deceptive to members of the public in their capacity as consumers of goods or services and not with the protection of the reputation or goodwill of competitors in trade or commerce put consumers are not limited to the persons described in s.4(3) of the Act. (Barwick C.J. at p.641, with whom A1kin J. agreed at p. 652 and Stephen J. at pp.644-646 with whom Jacobs J. agreed at p.650). 2. In deciding whether the use of a corporate name or trade name is deceptive what has -11- been said about the principles used to determine whether that name has a sufficient reputation in the law of passing off, applies equally in an appropriate case in relation to s.52(1) of the Act. I draw this conclusion from the judgment of Stephen J. 3. Care must be taken not to extend the application of s.52(1) further than Parliament intended.- To quote the words of Stephen J. at p.648 : "To allow this section of the Trade Practices Act to be used as an instrument for the creation of any monopoly in descriptive names would be to mock the manifest intent of the legislation." Bowen C.J. in World Series Cricket Pty. Limited v. Parish, supra, at p.189 expressed the same view in relation to the words, "Tests", "lest Series", "The Australian team" or "Australia", when he said, "These are ordinary words in the English language. Any attempt to acquire a monopoly in their use should be discouraged". In Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd., supra, at p.649 Stephen J. also said : "There was evidence before the Industrial Court about the antecedents and activities of the Hornsby Centre from which it could have concluded that those concerned with that centre's activities were intent to benefit from the good repute which the Sydney Centre had, over the years, created for the particular kind of services, unique of their kind, which it had offered as the only building information centre in the Sydney area. However, to say this is not to suggest any wrongdoing on their part. Neither the concept of such a centre nor its conduct is anything for nn ETE NET RF OEE NT IE -~-12- which a monopoly can be claimed, any more than it could be claimed for, say, an art gallery. If the first commercial art gallery ina city meets with an enthusiastic response from the public, competitive galleries are likely to be attracted to the field. They will be free to enter it and to describe themselves as art galleries, that being the descriptive name appropriate to their business; and this despite the fact that the pioneer gallery might have chosen also to style itself 'art gallery',prefixed by a regional name. For competitors' conduct to be misleading and deceptive they would have to have adopted as their names the same or a similar regional prefix followed by 'art gallery'. A quite distinct regional prefix followed by tart gallery' would neither mislead nor deceive. The opposite view would involve treating this provision of the trade practices legislation as the source of a newly created monopoly heretofore unknown to the law and likely to deter new entrants into a field which ought to be open to legitimate competition. It is difficult to contemplate any less likely legislative source of such a consequence. The present case of building information centresis, I think, no different in principle." Whilst this passage relates to such a descriptive name as "art gallery" for what is an art gallery I consider that in an appropriate case a similar approach should be made to words which are descriptive, such as "The Zoo", even though the place to which they are applied is not strictly a zoo but is a discotheque presenting some of the features which persons associate with a zoo, such as animals and reptiles, even though onlyd a simulated nature. On the first day of the hearing the undertakings to the Court broadly were that before the opening at 7.30 that night the first respondent would place a notice in a prominent position outside the entrance to the discotheque stating, in letters not less than one inch high : "We are not connected in any way with the Channel 10 television series 'Thank God It's Friday at The Zoo! ~13- or the film 'Thank God It's Friday'". The first respondent also undertook to place certain advertisements to the same effect in certain newspapers and also each respcndent undertook not to advertise or publicise by any means whatever an entertainment as "Thank God It's Friday" and the applicant gave the usual cross undertaking as to damages. The respondents also offered to use the name "The Zoo at Kings Cross" and not "The Zoo" alone. I consider the first matter to determine is what is the class of consumer, using that word in a broad sense, to whom the use of the words "The Zoo" by the respondents in relation to their discotheque would be misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive. I consider that the persons to be considered are those who would be likely to visit the respondents' discotheque. Evidence was given on behalf of the applicant, by meansof sound and pictorial representations ,of interviews conducted on Tuesday 15 August 1978 with persons at random at the Hoyts Cinema Centre in Sydney where the motion picture "Thank God [t's Friday" was being shown. Because the proceedings were interlocutory proceedings I admitted this evidence without having to decide whether it would be admissible at the final hearing. This evidence showed that many of those interviewed had some knowledge of both the motion picture "Thank God It's Friday" and the television show and, in general, those persons 'who showed a knowledge of either were shown what was in fact a coupon from a Sydney newspaper. This coupon had been published in a Sunday paper at the instigation of Mr. Markson. It was published on the same page as a news item describing the discotheque. The -44- The coupon featured the words "THE ZOO" together with the address 9 Bayswater Road, Kings Cross. Il announced the opening on Thursday 17 August and the name RON E. SPARX appeared in extremely prominent lettering. At the bottom of the coupon appeared "The first 500 people presenting this ad. to 'The Zoo' receive two free tickets to 'The Zoo! for Thank God It's Friday on Friday 19 (sic) August". Mr. Markson sought to explain the wording in this coupon as the result of some confusion on the part of the newspaper. Those being interviewed were then asked "Who do you think would be running that?" and later "Do you think it is associated with the film or the television show?" On Wednesday 16 August 1978 the show which had been telecast on Monday night was telecast again and on Thursday morning 17 August 1978 a video tape film crev attended at the Chatswood Railway Station and conducted a number of random interviews and I again admitted the sound and pictorial recording in evidence. These interviews followed the same general lines. Persons who said they knew either the film or the television program were shown the coupon and usually asked "Do you think it is connected with the film, the television program or neither?" Some persons said the film, some the television progran,some 2SM and some did not express any view. I consider that these interviews were not persuasive for various reasons including that the coupon referred to "Thank God It's Friday" and also to the fact that the questions asked at the interviews at the Chatswood Station were not directed to a time either before the opening of the respondents! discotheque or before the commencement of the action. If it be relevant, at the time of the printing of the coupon, Mr. Markson's ' -15- evidence was that he had the approval of Columbia Pictures for this type of conduct. The undertakings given, if continued, would prevent the use of a similar coupon. I consider that the evidence of those interviewed was not persuasive in relation to the question of whether or not they would consider the words "The Zoo" alone were likely to cause them to be misled or deceived in any relevant way. The nature of the interviews did not result in any disclosure of any reasons for the views expressed by those interviewed. The applicant, however, also argued that the use of the words "The Zoo" alone, in relation to the respondents! discotheque, would be likely to indicate in a relevant manner a connection or association with the film or the television show or 28M. I will deal later with the question of 25M, I consider, bearing in mind that I am only to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out, that the first question is whether, at the relevant date, the words "The Zoo" had acquired in any relevant sense such a reputation that their use would cause a sufficient number of relevant persons to associate a discotheque in respect of which they were used with the applicant or with the film. In my opinion, the plaintiff has not made ' out a prima facie case in this regard although I consider that its position is stronger in relation to the television show than the film. If one follows the law in relation to passing off it seems that the appropriate date to consider the question of reputation would be 17 August 1978, when the respondents! discotheque opened, although ee sent etre ye Pena eepinre eeneernreemnenee ae mee Sa repens eee Pe er re mare, Bee re eS ~16- it may be that some earlier date after publicity for it commenced would be the appropriate date. See generally Licensed Victuallers' Newspaper Company v. Bingham (1888) 38 Ch.D. 139 and W. & A. Gilbey Limited v. Continental Liqueurs Pty. Limited (1960) 103 C.L.R. 406. The applicant submitted that the correct date was the commencement of the action, that is Wednesday 16 August 1978. I pass now to consider the applicant's submission that an injunction should be granted, in effect, restraining the first respondent from conducting the discotheque in such a way as to suggest it has any connection with Radio Station 25M. The applicant's own television show featured a disc jockey from 25M, Mr. Ian Macrae. The argument went that the use by the respondents of a disc jockey from 2SM, in the case of the opening night of a Mr. Ron E. Sparx, in some way was likely to mislead or deceive persons into thinking that the respondents! discotheque had a connection with Radio Station 25M. The evidence before me was that disc jockeys employed by 2SM are able to accept what are called guest appearances from other employers in, for example, the entertainment field. The argument appeared to be based substantially upon the cutting and upon certain posters which the respondents had arranged to be displayed in certain parts of Sydney featuring the name Ron E, Sparx. I am not satisfied that any prima facie case has been made out in relation to the claim for an injunction directed to the question of any association with Radio Station 2SM. ~17- The applicant also submitted tha the conduct of the respondentswas in breach of s.53(c) of the Act in that it represented that the discotheque had a sponsorship or approval it did not have either in relation to the film or the television program. I considered somewhat similar questions in World Series Cricket Pty. Limited v. Parish, supra. In that case at p.194 I said that, in deciding whether or not a prima facie case had been made out the Court was required to examine as the major question whether a significant number of the relevant potential purchasers of tickets would be likely to be deceived or mislead by the conduct of which complaint was made. I do not propose to repeat what I said in Weitmann v. Katies Ltd.,supra, in relation to ss.52 and 53(c). Since I-have decided that in the | relevant sense the words "The Zoo" have not acquired the necessary secondary reputation which I consider they must before their use can, in the subject case, represent that the first respondent has sponsorship or approval it does not have, I am not required to further consider the meaning of the words sponsorship or approval. The question of the use by the applicant of the words "The Zoo" and "Thank God It's Friday" in relation to its program doesmt arise whether the word approval in s.53(c) embraces a mere revocable licence to use the name. Having found that no prima facie case has been established it is not necessary for me to proceed to the question of whether I think it is desirable that the Court grant an interim injunction pending a final determination { for consideration but in my opinion it may be questionable of the application. This question was considered in some -~-18- detail in particular in World Series Cricket Pty. Limited v. Parish, supra. At p.191 Bowen C.J. said : "When looking to the balance of convenience where there is a prima Lacie case made out by the applicant that the consumer protection provisions of the Act have been contravened, it is necessary to look, on the one hand to the possible damage to consumers that would flow from a refusal of the interlocutory injunction, and, on the other,to the damage thatwould flow to the advertiserif the injunction is granted but not made perpetual at the final hearing. This is a far more difficult task than weighing two private interests against each other." Should any prospective consumer be misled in any relevant way by the use of the name "The Zoo" in relation to the respondents' discotheque, he would surely be aware of the true position before he entered the premises because of the notice, the subject of an undertaking and which, the evidence showed jhad been affixed in a prominent position at the entrance. To grant the injunction prohibiting the use of the name "The Zoo" when the matter was first before me would, in effect, have meant preventing the opening of the discotheque, and, even at the time of the deliery of this judgment, would mean the waste of a great deal of promotional effort and expense. There was evidence that about 400 persons attended the opening. One other approach would be to grant the application to the extent of restraining the first respondent from continuing to use the name "The Zoo" with respect to the discotheque without clearly distinguishing the discotheque from that depicted 1n the television show "Thank God It's Triday at The Zoo" and in the film "Thank God It's Friday" as requested in one of the paragraphs of theorder to show <n aienaadl deieadien a ate enordeenemeenemenanaoeana te re ee eee -19- cause. Had I considered it appropriate to grant an interim injunction vmlil lhe hearing of Lhe action, or further order, I would have granted it in this form and not in an absolute form prohibiting the use of the words "The Zoo". The applicant submitted that this form of order was not adequate. In this regard I will not repeat what I said in World Series Cricket Pty. Limited v. Parish, supra, at pp.196-197. The proceedings in relation to the second respondent were directed to restraining him from aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring or engaging in various acts. Upon the respondents giving the appropriate undertakings, which would have the effect of continuing the existing undertakings until the determination of the matter or further order, which is the basis upon which this judgment rests, I would refuse to grant interlocutory relief but would accept the wndertakings offered provided a cross undertaking in the usual form is given by the applicant. I have not heard any argument in relation to costs. I reserve liberty to apply to any party on two day's notice to the other parties. ete REN kU em ee Pa entrnnnan oA_meevee, . aw ~ ral T certify thet this and the % ghtcen nrcceding pages are a true cony of the Reasons for Judgement herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Far. PEM Dey i Associate " Dated: 2 vey ut. IN Te Le ee te RE ne se So ee ar eo SE