CATCHJORDS Trade practices - Sccondary boycott - engaged in conduct for purpose of preventing trade between Australia ana places outside Australia - application for interlocutory relief - prima facie case - balance of convenience Trade Practices Act 1974, s.45D(1A) MARY KATHLSEN URANIUM Dr. ve Hi SEAMEN'S UlIOW OF AUS TRA QUEENSLAND Sa aNcH, UNION OF EMPLOYES and TH SBARIEN " S UNIOW OF AUSTRALIA Wo. G32 of 1981 ATTORYEY-GDYERAL OF QUERHSLAND v. TH SHAMEI'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUESNSLAND BRATCH, UNION OF SMPLOYESS aad THE SHAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA No. G33 of 1981 Morling J. 6 November 1981 Sydney It THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G32 of 1981 GENERAL DIVISION : BSTyann : LIARY KATHLEEN URAIMIUI LTD. Applicant AND THE SEAITEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUEENSLAND BRANCH, UTTON OF EMPLOYEES First Respordent AND THE S@AMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER MORLING J. DATE OF ORDER: 6 November 1981 WHERE TADEs oe Sydney THE COURT ORDERS THAT : Upon the applicant undertaking to the court to pay to any party adversely affected by the interlocutory injunctions such compensation (if any) as the court thinks just, in such manner as the court directs, I make orders 1 and 2 in accordance with the document initialled by me and placed with the papers. I make further orders in terms of paragraphs 3-10 of the said document. I stand the matter over to 9.30 a.m. at Brasbane on 14.12.81 £. + . for further meation IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G32 of 1981 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: MARY KATHLEEN URANIUM LTD. Applicant AND THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUEENSLAND BRANCH, UNION OF EMPLOYEES First Respondent ig THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent JUDGE: MR. JUSTICE MORLING DATE OF ORDER: SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1981. WHERE MADE: SYDNEY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ~ 1. That until further order the abovenamed Respondents and each of them whether by themselves, their servants or, agents or otherwise in concert with any person, be restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing or attempting to aid, abet, counsel, procure or induce any person to withhold labour from the Queensland Tug Co. Pty. Limited when and to the extent that such labour is according to the ordinary course of practice required to man or operate any one or more tugs FILED IN -GQURT/GMAMBERS Yi ON 2A 5 7 b/y/ 2! Ve fll ASS00197 3" assigned for the purpose of bringing in, berthing or unberthing or taking out, to in or from the Port of Brisbane any ship loaded or intended to be loaded with containers of uranium concentrates supplied by the Applicant where such conduct is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or (& likely to have the effect, of preventing or substantially hindering the Applicant from engaging in trade or commerce betwen Australia and Places outside Australia, namely the export of uranium concentrates, except where such conduct is within the descriptions contained in Section 45D(3) of the Act. 2. That until further order, the Respondents and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise in concert with any person be restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing or attempting to aid, abet, counsel, procure or induce any person to subject te delays, bore wv Drape What tain Ht eon be ee ship owned or operated by the same owner or operator is, has been, or is intended to be loaded with containers of uranium concentrates supplied by the Applicant, where such conduct is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of preventing or substantially hindering the Applicant from engaging in trade or commerce between Australia Wha and places outside Australia, namely the export of uranium concentrates, except where such conduct is within the descriptions contained in Section 45D(3) of the Act. That the Respondents and each of them file and deliver to the Applicant their Defence and any affidavit in answer to the Applicant's affidavits within 14 days from the date hereof. That the Applicant deliver any Reply and affidavit in reply within 14 days from the date of the delivery of the Respondents' Defence and affidavits in answer if any or (in the case of an affidavit in reply) the last of such affidavits if more than one. That each party give discovery within 14 days from the date of delivery by the other party of the last of the affidavits referred to in parragraphs 3 and 4 respectively. That each party deliver interrogatories if any within 14 days from the date of the making of discovery by the other party. That each party file and deliver its answers to interrogatories within 14 days from the date of delivery of interrogatories if any. bl! 8.That the costs of and incidental to this application be reserved. 9. That each party be at liberty to apply on giving three days notice in writing to the others. 10. That the Applicant have leave to amend its Application and Statement of Claim in accordance with the Schedule hereto. - Wan M9 SCHEDULE 1. AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION NO. G32 of 1981: (eS Wr Pareyqregn | bint 1} ae he He tek ~ be vt . wn Fo (4) In paragraph ? line 6 substitute "induce" fol Sandi " bn Perey bones -. Sutrk dy, he he fu4 fdyes the a ts} In maraiten 5 line 12 substitute wtneetnadeon £5 for "Thornwaite'. 2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN APPLICATION NO. G32 OF 1981: (a) Page 2 paragraph (C) to the end of the last line add ("the Chugoku Contract"), Paragraph (D) to the last line add ("the KKB Contract"); (b) Page 4 paragraph 8 line 3 substitute "industrial" for "indutrial", Paragraph 10 in line 2 substitute "Master" for "Mater", (c) Page 5 paragraph 13 at line 3 substitute "Bosun" for "Busun" and "of" for "or", Paragraph 14 at line 3 substitute "of" for "or" at fourth word of the line, At line 7 delete the word "or" at the end of the line and substitute the phrase "and/or"; (d) Page 6 paragraph 15 at line 4 and at line 11 substitute "containers" for "contained", At line 10 substitute "manager" for "manger"; (e) Page 8 paragraph 23 at line 1 substitute "containers" for "contained"; and (f) Page 12 paragraph 32 at line 1 substitute "to" for "the". Ti THe FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUESNSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G33 of 1981 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN s ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Applicant AND: ao eae Ui TON OF Se First Respondent Hm SHAMEN'S UMION OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent ORDERS MORLING J. JUDGE MAKING ORDERS DATE OF ORDER: 6 November 1981 ry UTHER E MADE: Sydney TH COURT ORDERS THAT 3 Upon the applicant undertaking to the court to pay to any party adversely affected by the interlocutory injunctions such compensation (if any) as the court thinks just, 1n such manner as the court directs, I make orders 1 and 2 in accordance with the document initialled by me and placed with the papers. I make further orders in terms of paragraphs 3 - 9 of the said document, I stand the matter over to 9.30 a.m. at Brisbane on 14.12.81 for further mention, IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA G23 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G32 of 1981 GENERAL DIVISION ATTORNEY. GENERAL OF QuEENSL AAD BETWEEN: "MARY -KAPHLEEN URANTUM LPB Applicant AND THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUEENSLAND BRANCH, UNION OF EMPLOYEES First Respondent THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA ig Second Respondent JUDGE: MR. JUSTICE MORLING DATE OF ORDER: SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1981. WHERE MADE: SYDNEY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED @¥=Gensenr?: 1. That until further order the abovenamed Respondents and each of them whether by themselves, their servants or, agents or otherwise in concert with any person, be restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing or attempting to aid, abet, counsel, procure or induce any person to withhold labour from the Queensland Tug Co. Pty. Limited when and to the extent that such labour is according to the ordinary course of practice required_to man or operate any one or more tugs FILED IN GOSRT ebuwindas rae Mor ON SA rae PBR Oe Pa a Gel assigned for the purpose of bringing in, berthing or unberthing or taking out, to in or from the Port cf Brisbane any ship loaded or intended to be - loaded with containers of uranium concentrates POBRY KRTHEEEN URANIUM LTD supplied by the (Applicant- where such conduct is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or pe- likely to have the effect, of preventing or . ; AAR KATHAGEN URANIVM AID substantially hindering the Applicant from engaging in trade or commerce betwen Australia and places outside Australia, namely the export of uranium concentrates, except where such conduct is within the descriptions contained in Section 45D(3) of the Act. 2. That until further order, the Respondents and each of them, whether by themselves, their Servants or agents or otherwise in concert with any person, be restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing or attempting to aid, abet, counsel, procure or induce any person to subject fo helaya lose FOE not Setar of any oni pfowned or operated by the same owner or operator is, has been, or is intended to be loaded with containers PRIY KATWKEEM Vapi 7D of uranium concentrates supplied by , where such conduct is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of MACY Kft Cod ve told, preventing or substantially hindering the-Apphicant from engaging in trade or commerce between Australia Wk and places outside Australia, namely the export of uranium concentrates, except where such conduct is within the descriptions contained in Section 45D(3) of the Act. That the Respondents and each of them file and deliver to the Applicant their Defence and any | ow Ie or affidavite-# i, u " within—i4—deys—from—the—datehereos . ee That the Applicant deliver any Reply and affidavit in reply within 14 days from the date of the delivery of the Respondents' Defence and affidavits 4 eh er « any or (in the case of an affidavit in reply) the last of such affidavits if more than one. That each party give discovery within 14 days from the date of delivery by the other party of the last of the affidavits referred to in parragraphs 3 and 4 respectively. That each party deliver interrogatories if any within 14 days from the date of the making of discovery by the other party. That each party file and deliver its answers to interrogatories within 14 days from the date of fv Gelivery of interrogatories if any. 8.That the costs of and incidental to this application be reserved. 9. That each party be at liberty to apply on giving three days notice in writing to the others. Application an Of Claim in b/y/s? IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. G32 of 1981 BETWEEN: MARY KATHLEEN URANIUM LIMITED Applicant and THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUEENSLAND BRANCH, UNION OF EMPLOYEES First Respondent THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) No. G33 of 1981 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Applicant and THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALASIA, QUEENSLAND BRANCH, UNION OF EMPLOYEES First Respondent THE SEAMEN'S UNION OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent MORLING J. 6 November 1981 Sydney REASONS FOR DECISION The mining and export of uranium is a subject of considerable disputation in the Australian community. Some say that uranium should be left in the ground. Others are of the view that it 1s inevitable that there will be a continuing market for uranium overseas and that there is no valid reason why the uranium deposits which exist in Australia should not be exploited so as to supply that market. These cases arise out of that controversy. There are two applications before the Court. Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited ('M.K.U.") has commenced proceedings against the Seamen's Union of Australasia, Queensland Branch, Union of Employees and the Seamen's Union of Australia seeking orders under s.45D of the Trade Practices Act. The Attorney-General of Queensland has also applied to the Court seeking virtually identical relief against the same respondents. Both applicants seek interlocutory relief and the applications have been heard together. No separate evidence has been filed in the Attorney-General's application, but it has been agreed that the affidavits filed in support of M.K.U's application are to be taken as evidence in the Attorney-General's application. The applicant company owns and operates a mine and treatment plant at Mary Kathleen in Central Queensland which produces uranium concentrate. All the uranium produced is sold to corporations carrying on business outside Australia for ultimate use 1n electricity generation in Japan, West Germany and the United States of America. Pursuant to contracts made with these corporations the applicant company has obligations to ship various quantities of uranium concentrates in compliance with time schedules. It is contractually bound to supply large quantities of concentrates by 31 December 1981. The contracts contain force majeure clauses but in the event of M.K.U. invoking these clauses serious consequences could result. For instance, un the event that the force majeure clause is invoked the American purchaser would be entitled to cancel the contract in respect of the undelivered uranium concentrate. Similar consequences could flow if M.K.U. were unable to meet its delivery commitments to the Japanese and German buyers. The uranium concentrates produced by the applicant company are taken to the port of Brisbane for shipment overseas. Containers containing the concentrates are transported from the Mary Kathleen mine by truck and rail to the port where they are shipped on scheduled liner services operated by various shipping lines which carry general cargo. The Australian Council of Trade Unions ("the A.C.T.U.") holds to the belief that Australian workers should not contribute to the dangers which the improper use of the uranium might create by mining or exporting it. In broad terms, the A.C.T.U's policy is that workers should not assist in any way in the mining and export of uranium. However, in February 1978 the A.C.T.U. specifically exempted M.K.U. from its general policy and agreed that contracts entered into before December 1972 should be honoured. The abovementioned contracts with the Japanese, American and German purchasers were all entered into before 1972. From March 1978 until February 1981 shipments of uranium concentrates were made from Brisbane without incident, save for a one hour stoppage of a shipment made in 1978. M.K.U. shipped uranium at intervals of approximately three weeks from March 1978 until February 1981 to meet its commitments under the contracts. However, in April 1981, its shipping agents expressed misgivings about making bookings of cargo space for future shipments. It had been the practice for some time to consign uranium concentrates on ships without Australian crews. This practice had been adopted as a result of incidents in 1976 and 1977. However, foreign vessels still required the services of tugs which were crewed by members of the respondent unions, or one of them. In April 1981 it became apparent to the shipping agents that there was likely to be trouble in getting members of the respondent unions to handle ships carrying future cargoes of uranium concentrates. Shipping lines which had formerly carried the applicant company's product were no longer willing to carry 1t. Eventually the company was able to ship a number of containers containing concentrate on the vessel ""Paralla" which sailed from Brisbane on 19 May 1981. It appears that in July 1981 a twenty-four hour ban was imposed by the second respondent on the "Paralla" because it carried uranium concentrate on 19 May. As a result of this ban the owners of the "Paralla" are no longer prepared to accept bookings from the applicant for further cargoes of uranium concentrate. Late in May 1981 M.K.U. made a booking for seven containers of uranium concentrates to be shipped from Brisbane on the vessel "ACT 4" which was scheduled to leave Brisbane on 16 June. The containers were loaded onto the vessel but because of bans imposed by the respondents the ship could not be moved. The vessel required tugs to unberth and move down the Brisbane River and out to sea. The ban imposed by the respondents prevented tugs from being used for the ship. Eventually the ban was lifted and the ship left Brisbane on 19 June. Since that time the agents for shipping companies have indicated that they are not prepared to accept further bookings from M.K.U. until there is a clear indication of a change in the respondents' policy to the export of uranium. The applicant company's commercial manager gave the following evidence, which was not challenged in cross- examination: "Because of the conduct of the Respondents and others acting in concert with them, MKU has been prevented from shipping uranium concentrates from Australia to places overseas and I apprehend that it will continue to be prevented from doing so unless the Respondents are restrained from continuing their conduct of withholding services from tugs and threatening to disrupt the movement of ships that carry uranium concentrates for MKU and of other ships owned or operated by the owners or operators of ships that carry uranium concentrates." The first respondent 1s a State registered union. As the evidence presently stands its exact relationship with the second respondent, which 1s registered under the Federal Act, 1s not entirely clear. However, there is evidence that Mr. Geraghty is the secretary of the Federal Branch of the Seamen's Union. I take this to be a reference to the second respondent. In early May 1981 Mr. Smith the general manager of M.K.U. had a conversation with Mr. Geraghty and offered to discuss the uranium issue with him. Mr. Geraghty said he was not prepared to comment on the matter until after he had discussed the matter with the secretary of the Queensland Branch of the Seamen's Union. I take this to have been a reference to the first respondent. Mr. Smith had a further conversation with Mr. Geraghty after Mr. Geraghty had said that he would discuss the matter with the secretary of the Queensland branch. Mr. Smith's evidence in this regard was as follows: - "In my discussion with Mr Geraghty on Wednesday, 6 May, 1981, Mr Geraghty stated that the Seamen's Union fully supported the current A.Cc.T.U. anti-uranium policy and that the A.C.T.U. intended that policy to apply to the uranium oxide which MKU proposed to ship, as well as to uranium oxide from other mines. He then went on to say that the Seamen's Union would not permit the carriage of uranium oxide by any vessel which had an Australian crew and further, that the Seamen's Union would take "protest action" against any foreign-manned vessel which attempted to load uranium oxide in Brisbane." I have already referred to the ban which was imposed on the "ACT 4" on 16 June 1981. There appears to be no doubt that this ban was imposed in pursuance of the policy to which Mr. Geraghty referred 1n his conversation with Mr. Smith. On the afternoon of 15 June, Mr. Hoens, an officer of the Queensland Tug Company Pty. Limited was contacted by Mr. Rowland a Seamen's Union delegate. The Queensland Tug Company is the company which provides tug services for vessels using the port of Brisbane. Mr. Hoens gave the following evidence: ~ "At approximately 4.15 pm on the afternoon of Monday 15th June 1981 I was contacted by a Seamen's Union delegate, Peter Rowland. He told me that the crews of the two tugs rostered to assist in the unberthing of the vessel ACT 4 would be instructed not to operate the tugs. I was informed by the said Rowland that crews were being so instructed on account of the nature of the cargo contained on the vessel, namely uranium-yellowcake. No other reason was advised to me for the refusal by the members of the Seamen's Union for refusing to man the tugs. "During the course of this conversation Rowland made reference to the other union delegate, Ted Pellett. At that time, Pellett was on the river engaged as a member of the crew of a tug and was not readily available. Rowland asked me that a message be left with Pellett so that he, Rowland, could contact Pellett, his fellow delegate, in order to bring him up to date in relation to the ban and to ensure that all members of the union on other tugs were notified." Mr. Pellett is the President of the first respondent. On 18 June, 1981 the night watchman employed by the Queensland Tug Company was asked by Mr. J. Steel to pass a message on to the agents of the "ACT 4" to the effect that tugs would not be allowed to handle the ship. There is evidence that Mr. Steel is the secretary of the first respondent. There 1s also evidence from the Master of one of the tugs which was assigned to take the ACT 4 out of port that he was told by a union delegate that tugs would not be allowed to handle the vessel while uranium yellowcake was on board. The applicants have commenced proceedings under s.45D of the Trade Practices Act alleging that the respondents are engaging in conduct in contravention of that section. They relied particularly upon s.45D(1A), which provides as follows: "(1A) Subject to this section, a person shall not, in concert with another person, engage in conduct for the purpose, and having or likely to have the effect, of preventing or substantially hindering a third person (not being an employer of the first-mentioned person) from engaging in trade or commerce — (a) between Australia and places outside Australia; (b) among the States; or (c) within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between two Territories." The applicants have sought interlocutory relief, which has been opposed by the respondent. The principles upon which such an application should be determined are not in doubt and it is sufficient to refer only to World Series Cricket v. Parish (1977) 16 A.L.R. 181 particularly at 185-6 per Bowen C.J.and to Transport Workers' Union of Australia v. Leon Laidely Pty. Limited (1980) 28 A.L.R. 589 at p.593 per Bowen C.J. and p.599-600 per Deane J. The latter case is particularly apposite as it was a case in which interlocutory relief was sought in an application brought under s.45D. It was not contended before me that if the applicants had made out a prima facie case that the respondents had engaged in conduct in concert, that conduct was not conduct of the kind referred to in s.45D(1A). It was conceded by Mr. Laurie Q.C., who appeared for the respondents, that 1f a prima facie case was made out that the respondents were engaging in conduct in concert, such conduct could be inferred to be for the purpose and having the effect of preventing persons from engaging in trade or commerce between Australia and places outside Australia. Nor did he dispute that the two respondents were "persons" for the purposes of the section. He agreed that that question, at least for the purposes of deciding the application for interim relief, was not arguable having regard to the decision in Laidely's Case (supra). However, Mr. Laurie argued that the applicants had not made out a prima facie case for relief. He said that all the applicants had been able to show was that a temporary ban had been placed upon the "ACT 4" in June 1981 and that this ban had been subsequently lifted by the unions. There was no evidence, so he argued, that the unions had taken any action at all since that time. He conceded that the A.C.T.U. policy had continued but he argued that all that could be inferred from the evidence was that the reason why the uranium concentrate could not be shipped from Brisbane was the existence of the A.C.T.U. policy, and not any conduct engaged in by the respondents, in concert or otherwise. He further argued that, in any event, there was ansufficient evidence to implicate the first respondent in any conduct at all. As I understood his argument, he did not contest that there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that the second respondent had taken some part in the ban imposed 10. on the "ACT 4". It is true that the evidence as to the exact relationship between the two respondents is not clear. But I think there is sufficient evidence to show that the president and secretary of the first respondent were actively involved in the events which led up to the ban imposed on the "ACT 4" and that they have been carrying into effect a policy of denying tug services to ships carrying uranium concentrate from Australia. As I have said Mr. Geraghty is the secretary of the Federal Branch of the Seamen's Union. Mx. Geraghty told Mr. Smith that the Seamen's Union would take "protest action" against any foreign manned vessel which attempted to load uranium oxide in Brisbane. Refusal to man tugs required to move foreign- manned vessels is a very effective form of protest action. There is sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to establish a prima facie case that the two respondents have acted in concert (with each other and the tug crews) in taking this protest action. There is no evidence that the unions have taken any decision to cease such protest action. It is true that the applicants have not been able to place before me any evidence of bans imposed on any particular vessel or vessels since June 1981. But their failure to tender such evidence is occasioned by the inability of M.K.U. Limited to persuade shippers to accept shipments of uranium concentrates on their vessels. I am not, in these proceedings, undertaking a preliminary trial nor am I required to forecast the ultimate result of the case. In the World Series Cricket Case (supra) Bowen C.J. said at p.186: ll. "The strength of the case which the plaintiff must make out will depend upon the nature of the right which he is seeking to assert, and the consequences which will flow from the making of the interlocutory order. However, where the facts are seriously in dispute, the court will not undertake a preliminary trial of action in order to forecast a probable result, but rather, if the plaintiff has a fair chance of success (and what will be required will vary according to the nature of the case), the court will proceed to look to the balance of convenience." I am satisfied that if the evidence stays as it 1s, the applicants have "a fair chance of success" and that there is a probability that at the trial the applicants will obtain relief. On the question of the balance of convenience I think there is an overwhelming case in favour of granting interlocutory relief. The evidence establishes that M.K.U. is suffering grievous loss. As a result of delays in shipments which have already occurred the applicant company has incurred additional costs or losses running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. It employs about 500 persons at its mine and treatment plant and incurs operating costs of about one million dollars per week in operating the mine and the plant. The company's inability to ship uranium concentrates has cut off its income. It 1s substantially in arrears in its normal shipping programme. If the company had been able to adhere to a normal shipping programme it would already have received the greater part of a total sum of $24 m. which is the value of shipments which have been delayed. There is also evidence that if the company 1s unable to honour its future contractual obligations it could suffer further serious losses. 12. Mr. Laurie did not contend that the granting of interlocutory relief would cause the respondents any damage, but he did argue that the applicants had been guilty of delay in approaching the court. He alleged that such delay disentitled the applicants to interlocutory relief. It is true that the applicants have not been swift in approaching the Court. But I think there is substance in the submission made by Mr. Merralls Q.C., who appeared for M.K.U., that proceedings under s. 45D against unions are only taken as a last resort. Moreover, it cannot be suggested that the respondents have suffered any prejudice by any delay which may have occurred. I think that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting relief to M.K.U. It is true that the Attorney-General is not incurring the damage which M.K.U. 1s suffering. But if anterlocutory relief 1s obtained by M.K.U. no additional inconvenience will be suffered by the respondents if the Attorney-General 1s granted relief in similar terms. For the above reasons I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory injunction in appropriate terms. As discussed with counsel at the hearing, I will hear further argument as to the form of an appropriate injunction. I certify that this and the etter . preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Morling,. Wile.