Trade Practices ~ Secondary Peycott py the Act of conduct hindering on preverky RSE uy 3 : Not and services - Pelationship of purpose to participents hours and working conditions - Reasonable steps hy Union to prey & at conduct Loss to WRIBASS PTY. LTD. ney UPTON COnAM : Melbourne G6 Fobruary .1978 TR OSE RRTYSRATL, COURT OF A } V.G. No. G2 of 1978 Nes Ds GE: TR OP PE GRADS IN THEM PRACHT LACT 197h BY TV ER MN: vey Plainviff SWAT TG AND: JOUN ED INDUS UNION Defendants R DER DAY OF 6 PSBRUARY, 1979 Mi BOURNIE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: them and im the case of 1. the defendants and officers ox Sts moinbers US, the second named cd: F . (a) doing or continuing or being party to the doing or continuing of any act in concert with any other person constituting the engaging in conduct for the purpose of hindering or preventing the supply by $.P. Holman & Sons Pty. Ltd. to the plaintiff Wribass Pty. Ltd. or the imposition and implementation of any ban upon the loading, delivery or other handling of meat or meat products ordered or required by the plaintiff from S.P. Holman & Sons Ply. Ltd. or intended for delivery to the plaintiff and from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or , inducing any person to act or acting in concert with any other person or persons in the engaging in any such conduct or the continuing or implementing of any such ban co attempting so to aid, abet, connsel, procure or induce; (b) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, being concerned in or inducins or attempting to induce any person whatever to engage in conduct in concert with other persons so as to hinder or prevent the plaintiff from obtaining meat products for the purpose of its business at 230 Mount Street, Burnie from S.P. Holman & Sons Pty, Ltd. 2, 'these proceedings so far as they relate to the questions of dumage cr penalty be adjourncd to a date to be fixed on the application of any party. WN 3. the defendants way Lo the costs te be taxcd by the Distries Registrar of and incidentol to tbcse proceedings and the costs in the interlocutory proceedings herein which have been reserved; Ay there be liberty to any partly to apply. VIC 'ORTA DESTIACE » DIVISTON Smithers J. 6 February 1979 wre nee ner ene ee _ COURT OF V.G. No. 62 of 1978 JN TAR MATTER OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 4974 BEUVWVEERN: AND: WRIBASS PTY. LT). Plaiutift RD_SWALLOY JOHN AND_AUSTRALASTAN INDUSTRY_PMPLOYEES UNION Befendants POR TUDC This is the trial of an action in which the plaintifs jeots the Australasian Meat secks relief against the defen Industry Employees Usion Cthe Union) and its Tasmanian Branch Secretary Mr. Swallow, by way of injunction and damapos. Th: relief is sought in respect of the conduct of the defendants on 24 October 1978 and thercafter in the months of October and November < in and about the hindrance and prevention of the supply by &.P. Hol & Sons Pty. Ltd. (Holuian), a meat processor and wholesaler to the plaintiff of meat for sale to the public in the course of the plaintiff's supermarket business in Burnie, Tasmania, This conduct actices Act 1974 (the Ac alleged to cortravene s.45D of the Trade Pr On 16 RNoveuber 1978 upon ince application of the pleinlity an interlocutory injunction was granted in these Z proceedings whereby the defendants end each of them were restrained until detcrminetion of these procecdings or further order from:--_ "(a) doing or continuing or being a party to the doing cr continulug of any act in concert with any Other person or porsons which directly or indirectly causce or procur any embargo or ban to be established ov comtiroed upon the handling of atl or for delivery to the meat products inter or from aiding abet: counselling inducing or attempting to induce any person in concert with \ any other person or persons to establish or corrtinue such cmbargo ar ben: (b) engaging in conduct with each other or any other persons so as to hinder or prevent the Plainticr from obteinios, © or meat products for 'the purpose oi its 'se at 230 Mount Street, Burnie from S.P. Vol iy. Lid. or Blue Ribbon Wholesalers subsidiary or ASSBOCLUK ig companies or from any oth peny3 being to induce (ce) e@iddine, obebbirye, cocci Linge, proc coucermmed tit, dneavetay on abbompting hy) any person whatever to engage in conduct in concert with other persons so as to hinder or prevent the Plaintiff from obtaining meat or meal products for tha pu ae of dts business at 230 Mount stroet, Durnie from S.P. Tolman & Sons pty. Ltd. or Piue Ribbon Wholesalers Pty. Ltd. or euay 'subsidiery or associated company of the said companies or fren any other percon firm or cempsany." The plaintiff conducts business in its main premises on week days and on Saturday mornings and in its milk bar alone on € purchases all Saturday afternoons an@ Sundays. The plaint its meat wholesale from Holman, The meat is cut up and packaged by the plaintiff who employe a butcher and butchers' assistants to do this work during normal hours from Monday to Friday. They a do no work on Saturday or Sunday. ~Pacl aged meat has been sold at the supermarket cn Saturdays for come eight years. Until September 1977 the business was carried on by one Singline. In response to Union representations Me. Singline had suspended Saturday sales for short periods from time to time but Saturday morning trading in packeged meat was conducted by him during about cighty percent of cach yeex. Since September 1977 Saturday morning trading in packaged meat has been continuous. In the courses of this case the parties have substantially ignored the Saturday afternoon and Sunday trading by the plaintiff. It is the Saturday morning trading which is significant to the parties. Retail butchers' shops do not. open for business on Saturdays or Sundays in Burnie or anywhere else in Tasmania. This is a practice supported ly the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Division, of which about ninety per centum of Tasmanian retailers and supermarkets are -members. This practice is greatly valved by the defendants. The the selling of meat by retail defendanis have a genuine {LOLIp GUOF Lau. Aq SBM Vie O8OGk GLOL LaquliadAoN paop10 puou Duac_pieq wuowg p QL FSVOT ZO TTRUN OLEL mat sookoydusa s,usupoy out i Woy rraupecd ou Aq parapso 2voW OPOTSTZ ZIoNsaNd yeu. pue Fer puretd au uo paowrd eq pm 2B ZV eoULzSqns ut poaTosat UOTAOOS TTe..ot oy, UT pue Aout SL6L teq02190 €2 uo oor *( ,Sqyucdtorzacd ota UY ULaAcoy) UoT}IeS aTRSsaLOTA ruuod Good sae Ber.urerd Lg Vey ou} UT ueUITTOY go sooko dua arp, Aq OLaTpA 0} zeou BuTdAtddas more poriueaartd uso sey ue LOUPUOD otf, SuUOTSSToO DUR saov Teotskyd ou, : eTUBUSRY, UT oped, Zot [TTeyor LILO ABDANLES OU ST ata. Aqato on. Aq ATTeoTsuy, porduoad st oaseo sty, ut yuretduocs s,rrtqurertd arp. LOOPGNS Ol PoNpuod OY. ZOU LANOD OLVLTT ST atouy, "pua OF Clea Ava SAVANNA WO YLoOA oul Cp WoTUQ WIBpUOTep at. fo ro yedouoad ong fpTes sy zt 'os IT wom ou}. Yoru Aq coTzoe Mp pNq [Teer TRIN, pue os op "LINS MOLT[LOF 0. padzoy oq TTY soyoed ul SOPAa.eg UO 7B Pp: wh CUTA Syostou i LOU, SARAF MOT (VAG "Ip OL6L AtNC 6 Bafosoq TTOM eouts Avpt.zy o7 Avpuolyy wo a o au. Aq pTes tose yeomatadns PONE uwod eavy Ao. puy 'qx AVPANLeG aodtoUlwiod Lory B46L tae sXepanqzeg uo ssoutenq kc ruute rd ory roy20O Sz Loyrutadns oyq UdnourTe JQULIIUVOS i I t ek 02 OLIN MCA | SLOTOU.MCl judgment the acts and omissions of the cwployees in the wholesale a section in refusing to handle end refraining from handli oO @ cat ordered or required by the plaiuwtite from Holman are called 'ehhe relevant conduct" Prior to the imposition of the ban representations hed been innde by Mr. Swallow end Mr. Adams, the State Assistant and Mr, Basset the Secretary of the Union to Mr. Executive Dir ecvors of the phlatebis' that the plaint should cease its Saturday trading in meal, but they had stead- fastly refused to do so. It is of course guite lawful for the supermarket to sell meat on Saturdays and there is nothing improper in the Union attempting to persuade the proprietors of the supermarket to ceese such trading. However it may be a Giffercnt matter when Union membors act in coiwert to take di their action to preven' Loyer from supplying meat to the suner-- market and the Union and any of its officers are involved therein, The plaintiff contends that the steps taken by Holunan's emyployces who are members of the Union, in concert with cach other, were oe @ calculated to and did cause loss sid damage to the business of plaintiff and were in breech of the law and thet the Union and Mr. Swallow have acted in concert with the Union members or have aided and abetted those members in such breach, The critical question is whether by reason of the acts and omissions of % fie members of the Union who sre cmployees of Holman in and about the ban end its implementation, Union and of Mr, and the acts o1 omissions of the ovadilow Fu opedenvdon thereto, Ue Uedoo bos camoitied or ds duc. woe nev V to have committed a contravention of s.450C1) of the Act and Mr, Swallow has committed such a conbraveition. Section 45D eo far as relevant and prisbc to the unendment of 6 Deccia 1O7G BS Act No. 207 of 1978) comluine the following provisions:- chon 6 person shall not, in conduc' t or "(not pear or the acqui son froin a "45D, (1) Subject ta this see in cencert with anoth POLSON, thot binders or services by a tt loyer of sition of poods or corperation (ot bei porson), where the < and would have or be causing ey 2s by a th omployer is conga ly to have (a) subslontiel loss or damage to the business of the corporation cr of a bo corporate that is relatca to the corporation; or e of competition in any market ion or a body corporate that poration supplies or acauires (ob) a substantial les da which the corpor is related to the cor goods or services, (2) Paragraph 4° (b) does not apply in rele to sub-seetion (1) of this sectien but a person be dcemed to ens conduct Lor a purpose im tioned in that sub-soc he * in that conduct for purposes that is dhol "purpose. ' (3) A person shall not be taken to contravenc, or be involved in a col ortion of, sub-section (1) by engaging in conduct where - which the conduct is engarcd ita~- (a) the dominant porpes in is substantially rela (i) the remuner of work or of ancthe: that pe: ons of "tha t "per sen or by an ciployer of (ii) an employer 'son having terminated, or token a mn : the ciaployment of that person or of another person employed by that cmplo or cd jin by the following ether (ard not in n), that is to say - (b) in the case of conduc' t eng persons jii Concert concert with : ations of employe or #u ofa or such an op or botin re, or orgenizations ana (i) an one: ion, who VEG conduct is enpaged the dominant purpose f in is substanvicliy releted to - (i441) the remmerctien, conditions of employment, bours of work or working conditions of the miployecs, reterned to in sub-paragraph (ii); or (iv) 'the employ yoof the employee, or of the omployeces, eFerred to Sa Sib. peurcgs raph (13) having terwis ot bis cryoyees, (5) two or more persons (in this sub-section referred as "parts sata") cach of whom is a womber cr orvicer of the sane bacon of cnppLoyces (being an orpouigzation thet ox is carried on for the porpe 1c for purposes that J 1 se, oF forthe dae intorests ox its ime to oth cmp engage in contuct wnother, vhethe: not the concuct is an in cerbl with o7 persons, the organ* be deemed for the purpos of this conduct in concert with the particip in thet conduct for the purpose or vu conduct is ne by the pertic Lior thet at tools a prover' participances Prom cre: conduct," os the Tesmanian branch In 1968 mectings of the mou of the Union passed resolutions endorsing the principle of a five day week in the meat retail trade and instructing the secretary to take uction ts stop supplies of meat to any reiailes: who traded outside the five cay Monday to Fridey week. In about September 1976 after receipt by Mr. Swellow of a complaint that the plaintiff was retailing packagod meat on Saturday mornings, Mr. Swallow instructed Mr. Adams to ascertain from the \ plaintiff whether the complaint was true and to advise the plaintiff thet if meat were be ring retailed on Saturday mornings action would be taken to prevent supply of meat to the plainveiff according to the resolution of the members of the Branch referred te above, Mr. Adsns carried out his instruction by speci to Mel Weletst pak bee, Votehb refusca to cease retailing meet on Saturday morning. About a week later Mr. taken action to temsinate, the employrient of ony north west coast sub-branch of the Union were angry at the plaintiff's weekend trading in meat, During the next three | days three members in the retail section of the sub-branch i complained to Mr. Swallow of the plaintiff's conduct in relation to Saturday morning trading and inquired whether the policy of th Union had changed. As a result of these complaints Mr, Swallow again spoke to Mr. Wright, advised him that because of Union policy he had no option but to consider taking action to prevent _the supply of meat to the plaintiff and accordingly he would advi the members of the Union in Tasmania of the plaintiff's attitude, On 20 October Mr. Swallow visited Mr. Wright and advised him that he had no option but to take action to stop the supply of meat to the plaintiff, With a view to achieving this Mr. Swallow contacted wholesalers of meat in Tasmania to ascertain which of them supplied meat to the plaintiff. He ascertained that the only supplier of meat to the plaintiff was Holman, Mr, Swallow then contacted Mr. Melrose Holman a airector of Holman by telephone and told him that action would be taken to prevent supply of meat to the plaintiff. On 23 October Mr, Swallow called a meeting of members employed by Holman in its wholesale and retail sections, twenty in all, and advised them of the action being taken in relation to the supply of meat to the plaintiff. By resolution referred t previously that meeting unanimously endorsed the action which Mr, Swallow had teken. This resolution expressed the unanimous intention of the employees of Holman to refuse to load any meat for delivery to the plaintiff,and declared the plaintiff "black" rey with rcegpect to supplies of neat generally and was in terms wide & cnough to require employees an aiy wholesale establishiwent to refi: from leading or otherwise decline with meat intended foi delivery to the plaintiff, This resolution was implemented by the employees in the vwhelessle section and a substantial quanti: Vi fron Holman was not handled in of meat ordered by the any way. The writ in these procecdings wos issued on 9 Novenber od above came on for 978 and the interlocutory poo hearing on 15 November i978, At Uhat hearing Mr, Swallow sought an adjcourmsent in order to ob} gol representation. tihat adjournment wis granted upon an une@ertoking of Mr. Swallow to recommend to menbers ef the Union employed by Holman at a meeting of these members thal normal. supplies of meat to the plaintif' be resumed. A inceting was hold on the next morning, attended by 130 members of the Union ployed by Jiclman in its wholesale, reteil, export and other sections, Mr. Swallow reported the sitvation end the undertaking that he had given to the Court, A motion was moved acd seconded in accordance with » the undertaking but an emendment was moved and carried that the ban imposed should remain uni such ti. as the Court insight make an order in the proceedings, 'ne emendaent was carried by 115 votes to.15. \ On 16 November the interlocutory injunction mentioned above was granted by Keely J. As e result of the proceedings before Keely J. of 16 November Mr. Swallow called a mecting of the members of the Union employed by Holman which was held at noon en ed by FOO members and VOPS The moe be J Court's order and moved a Mr. Swalllow repurted the inching of be adhered to. An amoudment was moved by one Lawson and seconded by one Koeford that senplies to the plaintiff be not t resumed until such time as the result of meetings of the Union members in Launceston ard Hobart was known and that the Jority docision made at those meeting agreed ta abide by the i later meetings This amendmerl was carried, tee The Executive of the Tasmanian Branch of the Union met on 17 November and pessed a recommendation waich was subsequent]y end Revers irehtie) ox the Branch.That recommendation by the Commnittce of s terms in substance that the Committee of Management condemned the . actioias an unnecessary, provocative and called upon the State Min oe) vtions to introduce trading hour for Employment and In legislation to protect the of the Union and the industry in general, ead that furthermore the Secretary cortis ty prety to protect aod preserve the working conditions of the members} within this ambit ena bes that the Secretary's action a 4. been necessary, correct, and furthermore that he be directed to continue to take such necessary steps and legal instructions end advice to resolve the dis to the satisfaction of the membership, that the Committee of Monagewent had no alternative VOUL but to commit whatever re were neccessary to safeguard the Union's interests, that whatever action was necessary Pou the Seeretary to engage in during this dispute should have the authorisation of the Committes of Management, and further that the executive recommendation be forwarded to the Committee members by telegraphic vote requesting a reply in favour or agoiue not Tater than 20 November 7978. oF BoWose beta on Launceston, and Nobart on 20 November ab waich lwo resolwticns vere passed, the (a) " 'That this meeting declares full support for Mxocu the working condit i were as Lolllows:- gras Pe comer of Friday November 17, 1972 a 3.00 p. resolved uraninecusly by tne State Brarich Commaitree ; ionday KRovember 20, 7197&,' I.E. ib ofl Memeremnenbl of the A.M.E.MN.U. Tasmanian } Kodera Court action as an unnecessary es] upon > State dustriih Relations to Lior to protect the the industry in ge to protest and p x 1 ip. Whe Secretar it ond nas been he is directed ta teps and 1 the int troduce membes action to date comes arene rary and cor continue to take and advi to nan the mem ) aory s di spute isfaction of ever vesour ces y to safeguard our intere necessary _for the Secretary to enyre authors that the Committe requesting 42 noon Ho >s Burnie Supermarket be QO, 1978, the date set for alow the Secretary carly resolution to Move th at 'the orvoblem this meeting ana we cali. _ upon the Hou iW members 2, To resolve the urpes discussions w: Ebtule Covernmicut to to protect the woweinne CONG retail section. that these matters can only he i arena and sot by legal means, 3. This meeting declar resolved in the industrial 4, This meeting declares full support towards the industrial : jded will enable an early by the Secretary which to the dispute, ction are kept full hold at 2,00 Oe case of the Hobart ap Wy 41978) 5. So as the me mbors informed a repo : on Filany Dec meeting the date eal anstrucvions ve but to commit wheat- It appeers that the ban im fact was Lifted on or about 16 November. In connection with the ban, Mr. Swallow communicated with $ various wholesalers from whom he thought that the plaintire night endeavour to obtain alternative supplies, He informed them of the proporced or existing ban and indicated to them expressly or impliedly that it would not be wise for thein to supply meat to the plaintiff witie the ban was operative. Certain wholesalers @id secretly supply some meat to the plaintiff in the dead of the night and Ly other subterfuge, endeavouring to conceal from the Union that thoy were doing so. But the supplies so obteined by the plaintiff were Lar below J ost its requirements and it is probsble head the ban heer it would have been impossible for the pieinci ty to continue to obtain supplies of any significance, The employees of Holmanwho on October 23 voted for end acted accordance with the ban on the plait were portly enploycc.s usually employed in the wholesale section of Nolan's business and partly employees usually employed in the retail section, It was the employees in the wholesale section who implemented the ban. \ There was 'some changeover ff between the two sections but o: to a very Limited extent and rt sricted generally to filling in for staff in another section who wore temporarily absent through sickness or for some othor specigl reason, Im relation to the arisine under s.45D(4) it is material that all the employecs nombere of tle Union wie valed Pos sod aebed da sccordan bin on the nilsintirtt wore cemzevecs af dhe ore enployer, It is apparent that the ban and its implementation were in accord with Union policy and that Mr, Swallow has actec with the authority of the Union in talking steps designed to procure the imposition of the ban and to make it effective. However, Miss Hickey, counsel for the deiendants, has contended that on the Uuion nor Me. Swallow are shown to have cotres evidence neither the vened the provisions of s.459(41) and that the circumstances arc not such that by reason of s.49N(5) the Union is to be deemed to have contravened these provisions. She contended - (i) it does not appear that the purpose of 'the employecs | in imposing and firpiementing the ban was to cause | substantial Loss and ingury to the plainbiff in its business; (44) within the meaning of s.45D(4) the dominant purpose of the relevant conduct was substsntially related to the hours and conditions of wort: of the employees who compitted it in their employment with Holman cr of their fellow employees; (i244) thet in any event the Unien hed taken sll reasonable steps fear to prevent the participants in the relevant conduct from engaging in that conduct and sccordingly is not to be Gecmcd to have acted in concert with the participants in that conduct (s.45D(5)); (iv) that it did not appear that Mr. Swallow had personally aided and abetted the employees in their conduct in ation to the impositisn oie implementation of the ba; \G 1. : sae x + U .. +. de c (v) thet, in any event, Me. Swallow acted honestly and reasonaply and having regerd ta all the circuinstances of the case ought fully to be excused jrursuant to s.85(6) of the Act; (vi) it dees not appear thet the relevant conduct has or would be likely to cuuse such Joss and diugjury; \ \ (wii) that the ban hed been lifted and it does not appear that jt is likely to be The Purpose of the R Miss Hickey submittee that oi the evidence the propor inference is thet the real purpose of the ban end its implementation was to protect the work free Saturday morning of the empil.cyees who imposed snd implemented it in their employment wie exter to protec Holman or of their fellow cepioyces end to a iesser the free Saturday morning of empleyees engaged pencrally in the reir butcher business in Northern Tasmania and not to injure the plaimtliy od thet in Cetermining what was the in its business. She conten intention of the employees whe lusposed and implemented the ban the Court should adopt an approach similar to that taken by the ) 46 CLR. 343-. In that cease Yigh Court in McKernan v. Vy the cause of action was based upon acts done in furtherance of a 'conspiracy allegedly for the mepose of injuring the plaintiffs in d vpon the refusal. by their employment, The aliepation was eran prim deaios Unton, aetirygy ou cmyployucirh af Che plaintiffs were a. Aves Thidor ben fopsanyples ee secretary in connection with Unab vefusal. The Tigh Court look ne the view thet although the resuil om even the intention of 3 L a &. y . to exclude the plaintiffs the defendant in his actions was from engagement by the empluye: unless they ccuseda to support a rival Union the real purpose of the defendant ct the interests of members of his Union, It was was to pro held that in view of the cxistence of that real purpose the conduct wieht have supported thie cause of the defendant, which ot 2aLrS wlvl. The view adopted ay of action alleged was not un of Dison J. (as he then was) at in particular from the ing of the tort of conspiracy wilfully page 362 where in sper sty to ingure another, he said:-- "Tt appears n or acts dene in tu able jin such ci: conspiracy act in pur the plain true, on th: conspilrecy has slows House of Le which necessari! exercise of his enough, Wor j intendcd if not the de the plaintify to or for the dercnce interests," alleged CO eeliecs to to combi by a Gesi an Rrexes impede conmbana wel Une doctrine which cance by th To edo should be . defendants 3 ingury but of cor inp. way required for the edvenconci defendants! trade or voculjouul du See also the remarks of Visecunt Simon LC. Tweed Co, Ltd. v. Ve Woven Ft Where the cause of action is not based upon an alleged combination or conspiracy to injure but von cenduct engaged in by two or more icd purpose as is the case under persons in concert for a spec s.450(41), the question is net what is the real vi-timate or iseina the conduct is that yO cpeaes purpose but wnaether one of the purposes or (4) oP son, Aud it is clear from ified an sub 45p(2) that a person is deemed to cnpape in conduct for & rn . a oe various purpo: so Longe Su of them. See the judgment the purpose of Ke of A5D(- A). ely Lockhart. montioned Jd, delivered However, suppor er Cirat contention ta a sli different way Mies Hickey said that the dnMiction of 1 5) January 1 ghely oss and damage upon the plaintir tits business was not a purpese of the participants in the relevant conduct at cu becouse their whole concern was with their hours of work, She urged that therotis 2 Gistinction to be drawn bc purpose and censegucnce soa uve any 'loss and dan suffered by the ploiutirs was but incidental to and a mere consequence of the pursuit of the one and only purpose. Miss Hickey subaitted that the protection of the hours of ii the dominant purpose and participsunts! that euch it porforiscd as to the plaintiff which : consequence, and it prov In respect of both that the purpose referred % ferred to in s.45D(4) is hingers and prevents the considered as such, is en for which participants actec from thet ers question dif' in that under s.45D(1) the for a particulars purpose In Toros fe 5 Tow rere] ided these supply rsaged in, a incidentetly from it to a a defence under s.45D(4) e submissions it is conveni bate OGe On in concert mv, is not tor This may not be in It reduced which the ition of goodis the ongaging in Fraser (supra) whether persons cular conduct engaged Uh ultimate @ demure Neve to ebse n ¢.45N(1) end the dominant purposes x conduct which Services or yur that conduct combs i WES CNEAGEC 3 tert on a ae ie TO acting in concert with cach other. In 5. A5D(1) the impropricty which is proscribed is engogivg iv coriduct that hinders or preven the supply or acquisition of goods and services where that conduct is engaged in for the specified purpose and doing so in concert with another person, The critical and specivied purpose is the purpose for which the conduct itself is engaged in. Similarly in s.450(5) the dominant purpose therein specified is not the dominent purpose for which the participants may act in concert, but that limited purpose for which the conduct which hinders or prevents the supply or acquisition of goods and services is engaged in, The conduct in which the parcvicipants engsuged was to refrain from handling meat supplies for the pleintiff, Such conduct may have been engaged in for various purposes, Clearly one such purpose and the most Limited was to cut off the Another such purpose was to so pleintiff's meat supp? damage the plaintiff's business as to force it to cease to trade in fr esh weat on Swturday mornings, Each of these purposes was @ purpose for which the actual conduct itscli woule satisfy the reauiremcuts of s.A50C1). was engaged in ¢ Of course the conduct wes engaged in in concert with the intentic of achieving something which would tend to procure the work Pree Saturday morning. In other words the motivation of the conduct the dominant purpese of which was to force the pleintitr to give up Saturday trading in fresh meat wos to contribute cc Saturday morning. to the preservation of the work f: Tt appears to me thet in the context of s.f5D the concept conduct wan cngaged dar docs Of Me porpone or w not eatond beyond thea «# of Pho goal which that conduct was capable of achieving In velation to the conduct which prevented supplics of meat reaching the plaintiftl that particular conmluct could achieve nothing more cessation of emaine crading in fresh meat by the of the actual plaintitfr, conduct, The wider and ultiwcte purpose of maintaining the work free Saturday morntug was the goal which it was hoped and divtended would be promoted by achieving the purpose for which the oot eon lapels eM pat ee . San canduct was engaped jin, If 8.45001) and 49N(4) eve constieucd py reference to these considerations the seetion proc the difficulties which are present if in relation to the identification of purposes ome is required to sech, nob thie purpose of the actual. conduct but the ultimate purpose of the participants et with cach other, Thus performing that conduct dn oo where it may be proper to infer that the exercise of the participants taken as a whole vos to protect their hours of work in their employment AL couls hardly be said that thet velatea ta their hours of work. was not a purpose subst: \ Indeed such a purpose by its very terms relates intrinsically Accordingly as was and directly to that end novhing case the problem the tenouvur of Miss Hic under s.45D) (3)(a) would be of the participants by their state subjectively. The submissioi was thet ones Pt epoecered that the participants ere renuinely Belacved rightly or wronsty that bhe action taken 5 & 3 3 by thom wes appropriate to ward off atthreat to their hours of ed a purpose substantially related to work 'there was reve those hours of work. Sho said that subject perhaps to the element of substantiality bedug @etermined objectively the j & J y rest of the relevant conception was to be detcnmined subjectively according to the state of mind of the particpants. If this were the intention of the Jegislature it might wel] bave been expressed in simple eud direct Language rather than the 'tortuous expression in the opening words of s.45D(4) (se). Hirt if the relevant purpose for both s.45D(4)(a) 3 s the purpose of the coniuct that hinders and prevents rather than the vlidmate result thot might be promoted if that purpose were achieved, that tortuous Languoge coulaG hardly be evoided., In this res used in s.451%3)(a) and (b) connection the forn of expressi 197% (Act introduced by the 4 No. 81 of 1977) may wated with that used in s.$7(2)(a) as in force before it was Geended by Act No. 81 of 1977 and indeed Uhe Jainmited range of the expression in thet araproph is apparent from the gaudenent of the majority in {> it 2 Mocor Corporation of, Austretia Lie, ature having put its hand to the protection of traders from condvet that hinders or prevents P x the supply to or acquisition by them of poods and services but withholding that pr ction dn cases where the conduct is substantially relatcd to the hours and conditions of employment of Uie participants could not be thought . . a ' absence of clear exoressiou Lo Ubert aire) Verge rg omathor bot uppeasoce}b-: it where the partictnayts he Conduce im concert with: or iprational If in this case one seoks the purpose o: the Gomiuaorh purpose dered or prevented the supply of iwoat by { of the conduct which hin int: Holman to the pl rf the avevoer is clear. The purpose was to compel the plaintiff? to give up feturday Morning trading in 4- packaged meat anc to do so by substantial loss and damage to its business vuelil it did. in my opinion this was the purpose of those ects end omissions of the participants whereby the meat int from Holman was not handled ordered or required by 'the pl by Holmants employees. In the light of these considerations, Uhe submission thatthe causing of damage to the plaintiff in its business was not a purpose at alll because of the presence of the over-riding ourpose oi om the Co-Workers protecting the hours of work of the participants/ Loses its force. lf one is Looking only at the conecuct that hinders and prevents, and not st the exercise in jivs tot Jtys that last menticaed purpose is not seen, and is not present. The conception of the purpose of the conduct that hinders and prevents is narrower than the concept of the purpose of the participants! exercise considerec as a whole. In my opinion this is the cffect of s. 45) on its proper construction, In connection with the defendants! first contention it remains to consider more particularly whether in fact the gmeat ordered by the > participants refrained from hand plointiff from Holman for the purpose of causing substuntial Loss damage to the phointiff. Tnomy opiuien the answer is in the 11 1 affirmative. Miss Nickey said that the cvidence just did uot Givelose Chat the purpose of the eeptoveon who dinosed the bun tac 3O jiimplemented it was to cause hess on damage to the plaintiff's supplies would couse lons : intention of the ban duevitable Uhat the oss of as to the plaintiff, But the meu. was to put pressure on the plaintiff by depriving it during the period of the ban of meat to sell in its business. A ben which did not cause substantial loss and damage would be unlikely is) J apply any pressure Ti carmot be doubted thet the purpose of the ben and the cutling of f of the plaintiff's supplics was to cause sufficicnt loss and damage to the plaintiff's business to compel it to comply with the deinands of the Union. Mr. Swallow quite fraukly agreed that in substance, the purpose of the ban was to make things uncomfortable for the plaintiff in whatever way the ban might operate. Pf Lost He said that whether the plait money or not was the plaintiff's choice, Inevitably it was Hobson's choice, The plaintiff had do give in or teke the consequences. And it is to be observed that the ban wes imposed on 25 October 1978 after Mr, Swallow informed the noeting of that date of action already taken by him which included intimations to other wholesa lers not to supply the ploivliff when HVolman did not. <Accerdinply the decision by the employees of Holme not to handle meat for the plaintift was taken in the knowledge that the plaintiff would be in difficulty in obtaining alternative supplies. It is not for the defendants to say that the relevent concuct would cause no loss or Gamage if the plaintir? in. The condition that the ban would apply wntil the plaintiff gave in was one theparticipants in the conduct bad no right to impose and 'the plaintiff had every right to ignore Cosi: Legh Co Verto isoamy view thal the Ie appernrs from Levant conduck vas to Sorco the phaineirf ageg moat on Saturdvy moraings, Accordiugl dominol purpese of Lhe to cease to trade in px abled to the hours and conditio. if this purpose was subete of work of the participants in the relevant conduct,or of their hoyment with Holman, the fellow employees ef Tolman in to be in contravertion of s.45D(1) participants would not be 5o(3)(a), It is a rational v re pludmbixtl die an fact impe / engaging in that conduct, work free Saturday materiolly that would be a ractor substal it would tend to caus a LL batches 2} employes by re | veriation in the existing aprveciment as to the hours of work to be performed by employees dn accovdsnee with the terms of employment currently a Ascot C OES of employment which depended milely whether the eviconce involved, The critical cuesti rca of establishes on a balance of pro ities that the continurs way the plaintiff on Saturdays wos Lik trading in packaged fresh ine to have a material imact on t hours of work or working condi tions of the employecs in The imposition of the ben was as stated above, effected by resolution of a meeting of cumloyees of both the wholesale and retail sections of Holman, Bub the relevant conduct in implcmoentavia of the ban was conraitted by ell the eapleyoes in the wholesale secu no by the plaimei ri LG 'of Holman. They refused to handie meat on Nlolman and refrained from the bend.a of it. The employces of persons concurring in, coomsel ls It is not suggested thet the comingint purpose was vellated to the hours or conditicas of work of, lhe employees in the wholesale sccetion, but it would sec that it would be sufficient for the defendauts to show that the purpose in guesticn was substantially related to t hours ond conditions of the employees in the retail scetion, each of such employees being Nanotuer person enployed Iv an employer of" one of the to the existence and extent of the participants, Nvidence relationship between the plainiiffl selling packaged meat on Saturdays and the hours worked or to be worked by the cmployescs of Holiwan in its retail section was piven by two crployces of Holman as well as Mr. Oswin, Mc. Swallow and Mr. Holman, The two employees who gave evidence were both employed in Holmen" s retail section, Mr. King said he voted for the resolution re which was carried on 23 Cctobar 1978 because Mr. Swallow put mu ' to the meeting "the case about Saturday morning trading," Tt appears that he understood that case to be that if the pleintilf continucd to sell packegod meat on Saturday moimings super- markets and retail butche weuld open, It eppears also that Mr. King accepted this "casc" partly because of his experience of what had happened in Melbourne in 1952 when the market in Prahran commenced to trade on Seturdeys during the football season from April till September, He expressed his view as being that:- "Tt only needs one person in Tasmania to open and within twelve months the reat will fal into Line" However, when Mr. King 3 wd whether he thought that the possible Cevehopmcsre bo which he rmterred would lave any dinpact on his own hours of work be replied: "Tt most cer cnployed by ' IT have to po te a eu and if the tos That was the enjoy the hovers ¢ that we are ald until. th 1 ww ta be reettioL my Lite. Tt toor a butcher shop on Geeky i i Ws. dacs not mez Loyed at Holmer 'iod." Mv. ileerey counsel. for the plointiff stressed, that nobvithstuudcing the possible deveiopnenls 4 New King had in mind he aid not anticipate th hours of the employees of Holman would be Ti. would be only if he charged his employer that he he mieht have to work on Saturday morniags., It indicates also that the possibility of Mr. King changing to some other cupiover was not in Mr. King's contemplation seve that change from time to time may be in the nelure of auy vornhing imunts Life. Tt indicates t invention of changing = that Mr. King certainly had no prese his enployment and did met y Jihelihood of a change in the foreseeable fuborsc, oyces, Mr, Dickenson the other attitudes to the other ed up his attitude and what he employee who gave evidence sv thought was that of the other onployees wnen he said:- "We voted we would ession we were | ven that oon Hoturdcuys if it was NiSOM Was re By the word 'at! Mr. Die rring to the plaintiff's Saturday inernine trading in packaged meat, He said he was ip favour of the ban being imposed on the plaintiff because "should they open and everybody Lolloy we would, we naturally thought we would be opening and working a six day weck", Asked whial made him think everybody would Lollos £ . on _ os: bon wat? o. Lt tod Mob be ong wil hoe, filehcino wan net @ whens © ol ae conviction, It is my conclusion that'he wos echoing the view of Mr. Swallow as expressed at the meeting as to the possible effect of the pleir f's Seburday trading on retailers penerally and was not intending to state that wiile employed by Holman. he feared a change of novi Reliance could not be niaccd on his statement that there vas any real possibility that within the forseeable future Hollins would open on Saturday wornings and require ivs retail butchers staff to work on Saturday mornings, if i ! inéeed that were his view. Much more reliable is the tmpliied assertion by Mr. King that teking all the possibilitics into account, even in the event of the plaintiff continuing to trade on Saturdays in packaged incat he did not foresee Holman opening for retsil business on Seturdays. It is for re was @ substantial the defendants to establish relationship between the plaintiff continuing to trade on Saturdays and the hours that the retail butchers on Holman's stafr muy pe rea sa to work jn the immediate future or perhups the feresecable future, It is to be observed that Holman employs in the vicinity of a lndred men in the wholesale and export and other sections of its business and about twelve in the reteil scetion, Its premises ere three to four km. "out cof town" and avay from the main business area of Deversport., Devonport is over 50 km, from Burnie. Since 1966 the treding hours of Nol retail shop have been from 7 am. until 43 pum. Monday to Friday, The trading hours of retail butchers in Devonport are from some time after 7 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Friday. It is clear from theevidence of Mr. Holman, a ement of Holman, that Holmen director active in the man: has no plans to open its retail shop on Ssturdays and that Mr, Holman does not anticipeste circumstances arising which it to consider opening on Saturdays, Factors would caus tending against opening om Saturdays are that: (a) due to the nature of its business and its "Location Holmen docs not conforin to the greneral ES oe Us Devonport rote ling hours, Mr, Holman put it that "it is a situation... peculiar to ourselves inasmech as we are isolated from the town" ; (b) penalty rates of time and a half for the first two hours and Gouble time thereafter are a detcrrent; (c) the employees are against working on Saturday morning and gocording to Mr, Holman, that would be a "Lorcuost" factor and "if it Lis_7 the wish of the amiployees not to work on Saturday meoridne at would be vother dixficult to opel. 71 Asked whether 2% the se wwkets in Nevouport and the retailers opened on Saturday morswing iat would affect the Company's policy Mr. Helmsn seid, "yes it could have an effect, but without it coming into being I would be rather doubtful as to what effecisit would have . It is a hypothetical situation which jn all boneaty IT cannot anticipa He agrecd that where seme tragers decide to open on Saturday mornings some of the otners be forced to follow suit oY and that had hanpencd dn Deverport Lo some extent, But Mr. Holman Cid not anticipaure Thek a vation in which his comprmny would have to consider openias on Saturday mornings was Likely a to arise in the foresceable future and he was uns decision on the point would be likely to make if it did. But Mr, Swallow asserted that in the circumstances which 4. had arisen in Burnie sines 29 duly Jasv it was extremely Likely that wiless the plaintiry' ce: to sell packaged meat on Saturday ld do so and the retail butchers mornings the superman would be forced to trade om Savurdays., As noted above on 29 July certain supermarhets which did not formerly open for business in Burnie on Seturday waornings decided to do so and have since done so. Hovever, they did not trade in fresh meat, Mr. Swallow said that iy the supermarkets and retailers \ ' opened in Burnie the same would occur in Devonport and generally throughout the North Coast at least, Ue said that in past to years it was part of his function as Secretary of the Tasmanian Branch of the Union to be alert to discover if any and what urdsys, and traders were selling meat on id that his nepoihation: wi. Ft appeared that Mr. Singline a was a persistent' trader au pucheged jigqat on Soturdays, that Mr. Swollow wowld protest fvon time to time and that Mr. Singline would heed the pretest fer a time and then resume c ley selling meat on Saturda: In the case of Mr. Singline, Mr. Swallow was only twenty pox cent ceesstul and the fuct is that has been selling packaged meat on Seturday inornings for some Gight years, Tt eppears that in or about 1068 an agreement was effected with the Meat and Allied Trades Federation in nding in fresh weal by | that there should be no ty retail on Saturday mornings. According to Mr. Swallow wtion have stated that should representatives of any retasler commence to sel meat on Saturday mornings all Mr. Swallow said thet members of the Federetion wv various supermarkets, includ: New World, abthousn not members of the Federation accept the agreement, but have stated that if a competitor is a! Saturday or Sundsy they reserve the right te trade on Saturdays and not only will they have meat for sale but will be cmploying upion Labour when trading om faturdsy or Sunday. Mr. Oswin who has been the Secretary of the Tasmanian Division of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia since August 1978 gave cvidence that the Division's members comprised ninety percent of the retail butchers and supermarkets of Tasmania and thet the Division was opposed to trading hours outside Mouday to Friday 7 a.m, to 6 p.m. The Division does not Tike to see retailers poing outsice those hours, po said thaw pel are Loathe to have the troding dy they have Oatra con per oon them Je Couurd rally the supermarket now run by the plaintit to sell meat in a supermarket on OO ate x to go into the reteil market to compete with the supermarket, ; He said thet the policy of the Division was that if the 1368 agreemsrt is broken by supermarkets retail butchers will have gir custom, Me said he to trade on Saturdays to retoin ti understood that if the agreement vere Broken "it has @lvays been up to Mr. Swellow to police uny breakage". On the gencral probah: the effect of the plainti?f continuing to trade, however, certain gpencral considerations are relevant. Clearly Mv. Swallow end Mr. Oswin are concerned to maintoin the work free Saturday mornings for retail butchers. Both are apprenonsive that a material breach in the general 'ys will lead to a general breakdown of the prectice. No doubt employers are very willing to convey to Mr. Swallow the idea that they will sell meat on Saturdays if other traders do or perhaps if any one trader does, If Mr, Swallow can be encouraged to remain vigilent and bring his influence and that of his Union to bear on any trader who shows a disposition to depart from the cxisting practice thet is all to the good for them, The statements mad by the Supermarkets ond others to Mr, Swallow are therefore to be treated with reserve, It is a feature of this case thet although, the supermarkets have heen opening on Saturdays since July they do not sel] meat on Saturdays. According to Mr. Swallow iff one trader breaks the others will follow suit within a week, The fact is that Lreders in Burnie have not followed + a for suit during the lest eight years. When the supermarkets opens Saturdey trading in Burnie on 29 July last that change in trading Mast have beau pursuciek Lo oolicy Geoisiorsal high mamgeemorh evel. Whom thes podiey ccedsiens ware made one mabter decided mink have peen that despite the Long Lotifs bo sell. meat on Saburdcay standing practice of supermarkets would not fo]iew svit. To my mind olso it is signifi cant that no executive officer cf any supermarket av has boon called to give evidence, If it be the fact that whe market has become imminenb af meat on Saturdays by the super the plaintiff continucs to sell on Saturday, although ac was not imminent last July, that fact should not have been in Burnie hes difficult to prove. If, also, decided that if the plaintiff continues to sell meat on | | 'Lhe Borie Saturday, and certainly if the supemserhets do so he willl follow suit that would not be difficull to prove, he fact that these preceedir came on for he failure to submit any evidence lung those lines perhops oO + ] the more sienificant. he only active trader who gave evide 5 5 if Saturday rm was Mr. Holman who obviously will be Mae selling of meat by retail were to cprced to Devonport, ard subgest to commercial imponderabies, certainly does not anticipate ever asking his employees to work in his retail shop on Saturdays. The reality seems to me to be thal neither 'the supermarkets nor the retailers desire to sell meat in Burnie Salurdsys or perhaps parts cularly, to cmploy retail butchers at venalty rates, I am nov setisficd that it is probable that they will be induced to change their practice in this respect in the near or even the remote future because of the plaintiff continuing to sell on Saturdays. to jnduce the Those factors which have opere: supermarkets other thon che paeimwasr mot to sell meat on LG Operate ta. Durr oii OV; in the trading pattern occurred in Burnie it cannot be thought . ' probable that traders in Devonport would extend their meat trading hours into Saturday. Finally if the selling of meat on Saturday mornings did spread to Devonport it cannot be said to be probable that Holman would open on Saturdays. Accordingly I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the dominant purpose of the conduct engaged in by Holman's employees, namely to force the plaintiff to discontinue its practice of selling meat on Saturdays is substantially related to the remuneration conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of those employees or of any other employee of Holman, a ne meena I am unable to accépt the contention that within the meaning of s.45D(5) the Union took all reasonable steps to prevent the participants from engaging in the relevant conduct, The truth is rather the reverse. It has been Union policy since 1968 that where there is any attempt to trade outside the five day working week, Monday to Friday inclusive, supplies of meat to the offending retailer should be stopped, Mr. Swallow said that the policy was clear, he had no discretion, and his duty was to implement it. When the matter ceme up for Union re-consideration as a result of these proceedings the policy was in substance affirmed. Certainly the Union has so acted that the ban on the plaintiff and its implementation has been suspended until this case has been decided, but it is clear that but for the intervention of the Court, and subject to any order restraining the defendants from taking action to enforce the ban, the probability is that it- will be enforced, The following passage in Mr, Swallow's evidence is relevant:- "MR HEEREY: And assuming the supermarket does not bow to your wishes the ban will go back on?--~The wishes of the membership, Mr. Heerey. It is quite obvious why the resolution was carried in this vein; the members believe we can win it in court, I suppose every litigant believes he can win and I do not blame you for that, However, the fact of the matter is if you do win the ban goes back on and unless Singlines Supermarket agrees to the union demand the ban will stay on permanently?-~-I would put it this way, that if we win and we expect to - the supermarket proprietors will see that they are doing the right thing and step into line with that agreement, Step into line under threat of a ban?~--I did not say that. There are all sorts of things that happen when they get beat in court, If they do not step into line?--~I believe the supermarket proprietors are reasonable fellows. They have not done the right thing up to date but there is no reason why they will not when they get defeatec here in the court. If your prediction turns out to be correct and they do continue to trade as they have before, the ban will go on will it not?---That will be up to the members of the union, will it not. You do not expect any change from their previously expressed attitude, do you?---Not at this stage. It is over- whelming really, a unanimous decision." It is clear that the ban and its implementation proceeded with the full support and encouregement of the Union and it was only after the ban had been in implementation from 23 October to the middle of November Jast that the Union took any action Lo prevent further commission of the wreneful conduct. It - tc did so then only to comply with Lhe requirements and _ ey eee eet py the Court it is likely to approve the revival and implementation of the ban. ' Aiding and Abetting by Mr. Swallow I am satisfied that Mr. Swallow has personally aided and abetted the participants in the imposition and implementation of the ban. He personally took action designed to ensure that the implementation of the ban would be effective in depriving the plaintiff of all meat supplies. It was ne who having ascertained that the plaintiff would not conply with the Union demand that it cease to trade in meat on Saturdays, searched for and found that the plaintiff's only wholesale supplier was Holman and intimated to it that there would be a ban on further supplies to the plaintiff. It was Mr. Swallow who called the meeting of the relevant employees and put before the meeting the "case" referred to by Mr. King. That his conduct _was Gesigned to encourage and indeed to procure the imposition of the ban and its implementation is quite clear, Indced Mr. Swallow regarded it as no more than his duty to do so. That he so regarded it is not relevant to the question whether or not he and abetted the participants in the commission of the relevant ca See the remarks of Viscount Simon L.C. in Crofter Hand Woven Herr Ltd , Tweed Co/v, Veitch (supra) at p.441, and Industrial Enterprises v. The Federated Storemen end Packers Union of Australia. (supra) In view of the adjournment of these proceedings so far as they relate to penaj.ty or damages which is part of the order to be made this @ay, it is unnecessary to deal with the contention (v) raised under s.85(6) at this stage. Substantial Loss Caused substantial loss and damage to the business of the plaintiff and that it would have continued to cause such loss and damage so long as the participants engaged therein. The circumstances were such that the plaintiff was unable to obtain adequate alternative supplies and that its capacity to obtain such supplies would become less as time went on, The effect on the business of the plaintiff of the relevant conduct as revealed by the evidence was in substance that there was a reduction in sales of meat for each week during the. continuance of the relevant conduct, of approximately oné- third, From average normal sales in the vicinity of a gross amount of about $4,400.00 there was a gross profit of about $1,400.00, Allowing for expenses of sales of $954 made up of wages, plant, wrapping, power, insurance and holiday and long service leave entitlements the net profit was $446. A reduction of one-third in sales resulted in a reduction of one third of the gross profit. The weekly gross profit was reduced to about $934.00. But for the most part,it appears, overheads (expenses of sales) remained constant and the loss of sales reduced the net profit by considerably more than the loss of gross profit on those sales, Allowing for savings on such items as wrappings and packing on the lost sales the overhead expenses in respect of the reduced sales would be reduced from $954 to $892 leaving a net profit of $42, The result is that the loss of sales caused a loss of a net profit of about $400 per week, The evidence of this loss was not given in precise form -and was the subject of much investigation but I do not' doubt that the loss during the pericd of the relevant conduct was of the order of S4CQ per week. Such a duns was, I consider, a substantial one, Conclusion . ' . / Accordingly I am satisfied that it is established that the Union is deemed to have acted in concert with the participants in engaging in conduct which prevented the supply by Holman to the plaintiff corporation of goods and services for the purpose of causing substantial loss and damage to the business of the plaintiff and which would have caused and was _likely to have the effect of causing such loss and damage to the plaintiff, that 'the dominant purpose for which such conduct was engaged in was to cause the plaintiff in the operation of its supermarket to cease to sell packaged meat on Saturday mornings and I am satisfied that such purpose was not substantially related to the remmeration conditions of employment hours of work of the participants or of any other person employed by Holman, the employer of -the participants, I am accordingly satisfied that the participants committed a contravention of the provisions of s.45D(1) in refusing to handle and refraining from loading, delivering or otherwise handling meat ordered by the plaintiff from Holman for sale in its supermarket. J am also satisfied that the defendant Swallc aided and abetted, counselled and procured the contravention committed by the participants, I am not satisficd that the conduct of tne participants did or was likely to have the effect of causing a substantial lessenir of competition in any market in which the plaintiff supplies or acquires goods and services, . In the result it is ordered:- 1. that the defendants and each of them and in the case of the second named defordunt by its members, officers or servants be perpetually restrained from - (a) doing or continuing or being a party to the doing or continuing of any act in concert with any other person constituting the engaging in conduct for | the purpose of hindering or preventing the supply by S.P. Holman & Sons Pty, Ltd. to the plaintiff Wribass Pty. Ltd. or the imposition and implementation of any ban upon the lcading, delivery or other -handling of meat or meat products ordered or required by the plaintiff from S.P. Holman & Sons Pty. Ltd. or intended for delivery to the plaintiff and from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inducing any person to act or acting in concert with any other person or persons in the engaging in any such conduct or the continuing or implementing of any such b or attempting so to aid, abet, counsel, procure or indu (b) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, being concernc or inducing or attempting to induce any person whateve: to engage in-conduct in concert with other persons so a to hinder or prevent the plaintiff from obtaining meat products for the purpose of its business at 230 Mount Street, Burnie from S.P. Holman & Sons Pty. Ltd. that these proceedings so far as they relate to the & J questions of danage or penalty be adjourned to a date to be fixed on the aplication of any party; that tho Qafennante navtho the niaisntrirrf its costs ay to be taxed by the District Registrar of and incidental to these proceedings and the costs in | the interlocutory proceedings herein which have \ been reserved; 4, that there be liberty to any party to apply.