Trade Practices Commission v. T.N.T. Management Pty Ltd and Ors [1981] FCA 221

ale!

fmm wy

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) NO. G.44 of 1978

GENERAL DIVISION }

BETWEEN: TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Plazrntiff

AND: T.N.T. MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED

First Defendant

BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED Second Defendant

MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED Third Defendant

YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED Fourth Defendant

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED

Sixth Defendant

ASSOCIATED STEAMSHTPS PTY. LTD Seventh Defendant

IPEC HOLDINGS LIMITED E1lghth Defendant

INTERSTATE PARCEL EXPRESS CO. PTY. LIMITED Ninth Defendant.

FRANKI J 19 November 1981

SYDNEY.

2.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 4 September 1981 a subpoena for the production of certain documents, returnable on 10 September 1981, was issued from this Court to Mr. P. Rochfort. On the return day of the subpoena Mr. Rochfort was represented by senior counsel and a number of objections were taken to the subpoena. A summons to set aside the subpoena had been taken out by Mr. Rochfort. On 10 September 1981 Bowen C.J., before whom the subpoena came, made certain orders and on 18 September he delivered reasons for his judgment of 10 September 1981 and also detailed reasons wherein he dealt with a number of questions going to the validity of the subpoena served upon Mr. Rochfort and also subpoenas served upon certain other persons. His Honour pointed out that 21t was not argued that the subpoena addressed to Mr. Rochfort was too wide in its terms and held that the subpoena addressed to Mr. Rochfort should not be set aside but that he should answer 1t. When Mr. Rochfort answered the subpoena further submissions were made that certain of the documents within the terms of the subpoena were not in his personal possession. The Chief Judge on 2 October 1981 held that certain of the documents in question were within