IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G152 of 1981 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia BETWEEN : BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED Appellant AND: TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Respondent oo" ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Bowen C.J., Deane and Ellicott Jd. DATE OF ORDER: 27 November 1981 WHERE MADE: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. Brambles Holdings Limited pay to the Trade Practices Commission its costs of the appeal. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G152 of 1981 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia BETWEEN : BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED Appellant AND: TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Respondent CORAM: Bowen C.J., Deane and Ellicott JJ. 27 November 1981. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an appeal against an interlocutory judgment and order of Franki J. dated 23 October 1981 refusing to order further and proper answers to -interrogatories delivered by Brambles Holdings Limited (the second defendant) to the Trade Practices Commission (the plaintiff) in proceedings No. G44 of 1978. The main question which has been argued is whether the answers to interrogatories numbered 10 and 46, which have been taken to be representative of a number of interrogatories which are said to have been inadequately answered, are objectionable. We do not think that that question fell to be resolved by Franki J. by reference to any single decisive principle. Rather it fell to be determined by his Honour in the course of exercising a discretion by reference to a number of relevant principles and considerations. As we read his judgment his Honour so determined it. We are not persuaded that Franki J. fell into any error in respect of any of the matters raised in the appeal. To the contrary we are in general agreement with the conclusions which he reached and the reasons which he advanced for those conclusions. This being an appeal on a matter of practice and procedure, it is in our view unnecessary and undesirable that we say more than that. In adopting that course we would wish to make clear that we are not unappreciative of the force and care of Mr. Sweeney's argument on behalf of Brambles Holdings Limited. We would add that what we have said does not necessarily involve complete approval of the form of the answers. We would dismiss the appeal with costs. The orders of the Court will be: 1. That the appeal be dismissed. 2. That Brambles Holdings Limited pay to the Trade Practices Commission its costs of the appeal. — a arte / preceding | cert t cou oe a oS pe e¥are a true Copy of the reasons for "> judgment herein cf cha Court ZLEE Associate Datod 3/2/57