ae ee ee ee ' Py ee de ee Pen Santen frets afte Ra ee a, bu toes owe ae Ee we la ad a ee re. CATCHWORDS Inspection of documents by a stranger to litigation - 0.46 r.6 Federal Court Rules - interpretation thereof - public policy - proceedings in courts of law open to public ~- rights of citizens to litigate without fear of exposing themselves to inquiry at the hands of strangers to litigation - expectation that wrongdoers should be punished - process of considering conflicting aspects of public policy. Tradestock pty. ltd. & Ors. v. T.N.T. (Management) Pty. Limited & Ors. VG No. 26 of 1977 Smithers J. 7 October 1983. Melbourne. RR Ee ernrres reecree & eee ne wee we ee ee - - = ae - eee are See n cee Le ae he nd eae ae a nen i ECs oe a oe pee en IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VG No. 26 of 1977 Between: TRADESTOCK PTY. LIMITED, WILLIAM JAMES FREWEN and NOEL EDWARD STOCK (Plaintiffs) And: T.N.T. (MANAGEMENT) PTY. LIMITED (First Defendant) INTERSTATE PARCEL EXPRESS COMPANY PTY. LIMITLD {Second Defendant) IPEC INSURANCE LIMITED (Third Defendant) TARLEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Fourth Defendant) ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED (Fifth Defendant) BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES LIMITED (Sixth Defendant) MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED (Seventh Defendant) YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED (Eighth Defendant) Stew tt oe tetnetee bee ta et aN AT eed iM Re atl KE oh Te cache acetal ary Maer aera ae dalam stnded ay TOS at Ne ee Te tent Helene ements mentnnitematanrh UA SIN Aid Ban akties Pelt MES deeb anata ae ke UNITED TRANSPORT HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED (Ninth Defendant) EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED (Tenth Defendant) UNITED TRANSPORT HOLDINGS AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (Eleventh Defendant) TRADEX TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED (Twelfth Defendant) Judge Making Order: Smithers J. Date of Order: 7 October 1983 Where Made: Melbourne. ORDER In the summonses brought respectively by the second, third, fourth and fifth named defendants and heard on 12 September 1983 THE COURT ORDERS THAT until further order: 1. The documents referred to in paras A 2, A 3 and A5 (12) remain confidential to the parties. 2. Inspection by parties be by their legal advisers only. 3. Each party should bear its own costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISTON wee ww VG No. 26 of 1977 Between: TRADDSTOCK PTY. LIMITED, WILLIAM JAMES FREWEN and NOEL EDWARD STOCK (Plaintiffs) And: T.N.T. (MANAGEMENT) PTY. LIMITED (First Defendant) INTERSTATE PARCEL EXPRESS COMPANY PTY. LIMITED (Second Defendant) IPEC INSURANCE LIMITED (Third Defendant) TARLEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Fourth Defendant) ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY. LIMITED (Fifth Defendant) BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES LIMITED {Sixth Defendant) MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED (Seventh Defendant) YOUNGS TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED (Eighth Defendant) rv eStle ee ee te 2 Weel hae Witte INO Ct ee Ret ett he ee me a nr a ee ae Bt UNITED TRANSPORT HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED (Ninth Defendant) EXPRESS FREIGHT PTY. LIMITED (Tenth Defendant) UNITED TRANSPORT HOLDINGS AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (Eleventh Defendant) TRADEX TRANSPORT PTY. LIMITED (Twelfth Defendant) Coram: Smithers J. 7 October 1983 On 15 August 1983 the first and fifth named REASONS FOR JUDGMENT defendants applied upon summons for orders that: "dT, op te pcan rn en ee Except to the extent to which leave has been given by order of Ist July, 1983 of this Honourable Court, the Senior Assistant Crown Solicitor (acting for the Trade Practices Commission) or any person er entity who is not a party to the proceedings, may not search in the Registry of this Honourable Court for or inspect or obtain any photocopy of or otherwise have access to the following documents in the said proceeding: (a) all exhibits; {b) index on cover of Court file; (c) pleadings and other documents filed; (da) all other documents on file with the wee = wa ee ee Riad ee A es RR ree een ee mee terre tee te eet detente 3. exception of all transcript and the Court Register (i.e. Public Register)." On 16 August 1983 the second, third and fourth named defendants applied upon summons for orders in the same terms as above. These summonses arose out of certain correspondence between the Victorian District Registrar of this Court and the parties to this action and the Assistant Crown Solicitor concerning a request by the Crown Solicitor to the District Registrar that the latter have access to documents on the Court file relating to this action. This action commenced as B No. 194 of 1976 in the Australian Industrial Court. It is now VG No. 26 of 1977 in this Court. It is an action brought by the plaintiiffs against the above named defendants. The action arose out of steps taken by the plaintiff company (Tradestock) to act as a consultant and a broker for companies requiring transport services whereby Tradestock would advise as to the most appropriate services for particular projects and negotiate with companies offering such services with a view to arranging for the supply of those services at the cheapest rates obtainable. This was a form of brokerage not previously in operation in relation to companies such as the defendants at all or at least for a very long time. Tradestock alleged that those companies had engaged in conduct in contravention of s.45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act) in that in contravention of that provision as me Ne Sine ee Nd Dl ana tea! be ae ee rte 4. amended by the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977 (No. 81 of 1972) they had agreed amongst themselves that, inter alia, they would not deal with or accept any interstate or other carrying business offered to them through brokers including Tradestock in its capacity as broker for companies requiring transport services. On 13 April 1977 the farst, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and twelfth named defendants sought an order that Tradestock's action be stayed pending the provision by it of security for costs. On 2 May 1977 an order was made that so far as the action related to the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and twelfth defendants it be stayed until certain security was provided in the sum of $2,000 for each defendant or group of defendants with the same interest. The reasons for the order appear in Tradestock Pty. Ltd. v. T.N.T. (Management) Pty. Ltd. & Ors (1977) 14 A.L.R. 52. On 24 October 1977 Tradestock applied for discharge of the order staying its action. In then appearing to me that there were good prospects that the plaintiff's action would succeed, by order dated 27 January 1978, I lifted the stay. The reasons appear more fully in Tradestock Pty. Ltd. v. T.N.T. (Management) Ply. Ltd. (No.2) (1978) 17 A.L.R. 257. However,, when lifting the stay I intimated at p.279 that if certain undertakings were given to the Court by defendants I nn rn rrermnaemn ereye meer eee oe a - — nee eee ate ce pet tke a ea eT at rate Ae a a ee AO eae ale EE ED Ge ee nnatmenetes Seana te Meee nee A ne ee on Re ee he eee wt 5. would reimpose the stay. The undertakings were given, the stay was reimposed and is still in force. The action awaits the outcome of proceedings in G No. 44 of 1978 brought by the Commission against certain of the defendants. The defendants in those proceedings are the first, second, fifth, seventh, eighth and tenth defendants in action No. VG 26 of 1977 and against Brambles Holdings Ltd, Associated Steamships Pty. Ltd. and Ipec Holdings Limited. In those proceedings the claim, made pursuant to s.77 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 against the defendant T.N.T. (Management) Pty. Limited, Brambles Holdings Ltd., Mayne Nickless Ltd. Youngs Transport Pty. Ltd., Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty. Ltd., Associated Steamships Pty. Ltd., Ipec Holdings ltd., and Interstate Parcel Express Pty. Ltd. is that in 1976 they entered into an agreement or arrangement with each other that they would not negotiate or deal with Tradestock in respect of the carrying or forwarding of freight or the arranging therefor as proposed by Tradestock or any other broker for or on behalf of persons seeking the services of such defendants and gave effect to such agreement or arrangement contrary to s.45 of the Act. Proceeding G44 of 1978 does not allege conduct which is criminal: see ss.77 and 78 of the Trade Practices Act 1977 (the Act). The conduct alleged will, if proved against any defendant, expose that defendant to a penalty of not more than $250,000 and other relief: see ss.76 and 78 of the Act. rer Phineas De ba ae het onl mt wee Ne ene ee ee ae a I whe kK oe napa ML a LAC BA ee en Nn me mee ee ne et ee ee ne, ~ eth eet Fee 6. Proceeding G44 of 1978 is at present in the course of being heard by his Honour Mr. Justice Franki in Sydney. There 1s no dispute that the request of the Assistant Crown Solicitor proceeds from the desire of the Commission to ascertain whether the contents of any of the documents to which access is sought would, if available for the purposes of action G44 of 1978, assist the Commission to present its case against the defendants. Various parties having made written submissions to the District Registrar as to the terms upon which inspection should be granted, if at all, the District Registrar intimated to al] parties that he proposed to grant access to documents in his custody to parties and non-parties as follows: - "A. PARTIES AND "NON" PARTIES (INCL. TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION) MAY INSPECT AND PHOTOCOPY THE FOLLOWING: 1. All Transcript wee including that marked confidential being pages 230 - 349A (copy transcript will be supplied by the Court Reporting Service) 2. All Exhibits ... being marked "Be ton, ape, eee *eope "RUE", "RQ", app" and *"Li" Note: * weceveccesvsece Documents admitted were exhibits tendered in restricted transcript ae ce tate a Rn en rte nln EO eel a a ee he hate ce See NN eR MARE lO Rm OO cael ete SNe re ahha lS « 3. Index on Cover of Court Files 4. Court Register .... (ie Public register) 5. PLEADINGS anda other DOCUMENTS FILED INCLUDING 1. Writ of Summons 2. All entries of appearance and notices of change of Solicitor 3. All notices of discovery 4. All chamber summonses (sometimes referred to as summons) 5. All notices for further and better particulars 6. All judgments and Orders by the Court 7. Application by the 10th and the Illth Defendants filed 24.10.77 8. Amended Statement of Claim ~ 9. All Notices of Intention to Proceed 10. All Notices of Discontinuance ll. All Defences to Statement of Claim or Amended Statement of Claim 12. All Correspondence and like documents on file from parties and (Non Parties if any received and on file) PARTIES ALSO SOLICITORS INSTRUCTED BY THE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION (BUT NOT OTHER NON DOCUMENTS AS FOLLOWS Documents mentioned in the order made by Mr Justice Smithers on 1.7.83 ie. (a) all documents produced by Plaintiffs on subpoena {b) all affidavits (including exhibits thereto) filed by Plaintiffs (c) all documents produced by Plaintiffs during the proceedings identified to Registrar by the Solicitor for the Plaintiff NOTE: Parties only will be shown (and allowed to Photocopy) any and all documents held in the Registry by the Registrar in proceeding No. VG 26 of 1977 except the following Ten ere twee ere ro ee ee ae -- _ - - - we oe wee ek het war Me et Ae A SUT Fe CRB ANT ATS Seater eden RIVER ee te ee ee ee eee ne te a Te Red tee 2 eed ve All documents marked for Identification ... marked MFI etc. i.e. Materials produced apparently on subpoena having been given marking identifications as follows: MFI "A" *MPrI "1", and *MFI "2" NOTE: eeee- Gocuments marked for udentification in restricted transcript" The District Registrar informed the parties that if any of them objected to the course which he proposed to follow they should file a summons returnable before a single judge of the Court seeking an order to the contrary. The summonses now before me were filed in consequence of the Dastrict Registrar's intimation. In the instant case various documents were filed by the parties relating to the substantive cases as pleaded in the Statement of Claim but there has been no hearing of that substantive case. However, contested interlocutory proceedings did come before the Court. In those proceedings the prospect of the plaintiff succeeding in its substantive claim was in issue. Oral evidence was given, on behalf of the plaintiff and of some of the defendants directed to that issue, and certain documents were admitted into evidence or marked for identification. Some of those documents were produced by the plaintiff, some were produced by the Gefendants and some, upon subpoena, by strangers to the proceedings. Various of those documents are stiil in the sete nok Dates f ot te wee ke te ee er we et ee I ee ee ne et meres Sener eee eed meth te on ' 9. custody of the Registrar and are those referred to in Part A item 2 and Part C of the abovementioned annexure "A". It is not clear that any of those documents are now the subject of confidentiality hitherto imposed by the Court. It was decided by Franki J. in proceeding No. 44 of 1978 by a judgment dated 2 June 1983 that the current Federal Court rules and in particular 0.46 r.6 of the said rules were applicable to an application made by the Commission for access to the following documents in VG 26 of 1977: "(a) the Court file; (b) the transcript of the proceedings; (c) all documents in the Court's custody produced in answer to any subpoena called at any stage in the proceedings; and (a) all exhibits received into evidence in the proceedings." Since then it has been assumed that the current Federal Court rules in relation to inspection of documents are applicable generally. Order 46 r.6 of the current Federal Court rules is in the following terms: "6. (1) Except with the leave of the Court or a Judge a person who is not a party to the proceeding may not search in the Registry for or inspect - (a) any judgment, order, transcript of a proceeding, or other document which the Court has ordered remain confidential; (b) any affidavit; er en rr tener peer Ween ee ee mee - = no ete FS ee Oe A ete me Te ne mame eee Le ved ee et ee ee fee Pe Le ake ie St ete Ale Oh ae ee en ame Ar te au 10. {c) interrogatories or answer to interrog- atories; (da) lists of documents given on discovery; (e) admissions; (£) evidence taken on deposition; (g) any subpoena or any documents lodged with the Registrar in answer to a subpoena for production of documents; or (h) any other document which the Registrar considers ought to remain confidential to the parties. (2) Except with the leave of the Court or a Judge a party may not search in the Registry for or inspect any document filed to support an application that any document, evidence or thing be kept confidential or that any document or thing be privileged from production." In relation to 0.46 r.6 Franki J. stated that no leave was required for inspection of the pleadings, transcript, (other than that in respect of which an order for confidentiality has been made), any exhibit (other than that for which an order for confidentiality has been made), any praecipe for a subpoena, the Court register and the index on the cover of the file unless the Registrar considers any such document should remain confidential under 0.46 r.6(1)(h). The parties to the present applications are in agreement in relation to the District Registrar's decision as to access to documents referred to in Parts B and C of Annexure "A", the only qualification being that the applicants ask this Court to restrict access to documents in Part C to the parties' legal advisers. haa EE tal man eR RI arte aAle LY nena hfe Naat a hat ee Lael a Ss AAS mein rere Aenea cl ei a baat netanant meme eAcaeialta caer a Cat A ee otis Ae OMA Oe Ban neonate yah wma dale oe ll. In relation to Part A Mr. Robb for the Commission submits that pursuant to 0.46 r.6 it would be appropriate for this Court to reject the objections of the defendants to the inspection by the Commission of certain of the documents referred to in Part A of Annexure A. The documents of which the Commission seeks inspection are those in Part A of the Registrar's intimation to the parties set out above. The applicants do not object to the Commission having access to the transcript or the Court register. They do object to the Commission having access to any other documents referred to in part A of the Registrar's intimation. It is convenient to have regard to the principles relevant to the situation where a person not party to particular proceedings seeks access to documents filed in the Court by the parties during the course thereof before trial, and to documents which have been admitted into evidence during the hearing, interlocutory or final, or partial hearing of these proceedings. The District Registrar may have taken the view in this case that all documents in his custody not specified in paras (a) to (g) of r.6 of 0.46 are documents to which, by implication of that rule, any member of the public is entitled to access for inspection purposes unless a party to 12. the proceeding can put forward a good reason why such access should not be granted. He may also have taken the view that because the proceedings in progress when the documents were taken into evidence were open to the public the documents taken into evidence were also, in a sense, public. Just as a person in Court hears the oral evidence so he has knowledge of the admission into evidence of the documents which were made exhibits in the course of that evidence. Certainly the Commission argued that these views were correct and should be adopted by this Court. Both of these considerations are relevant. There is however, a question whether because of some basic considerations relating to the nature of Court proceedings a different view should be taken. The provision by the State of a court to hear claims by one citizen against another is of course a basic feature of a civilized society. It is to ensure that citizens can do business or undertake relationships with each other with the confidence that those relationships will be governed and enforced by the law. It is a public interest of the highest order that a citizen have confidence in the administration of the law and be free of fear that in the assertion at law of his rights, he will not generally speaking, expose himself to injury at the hands of third parties. In the present circumstances it is not so much the a = eegrmee meee ens =: we en wnne eee -— ee ey ete eet en ne ome se leaner ald ae Mie ane 'elas Seat ASA de cL AA Cader aM DAT Sema lt rhe ae at Oe NI Re tee atta mee AN SRR EY pion SO SO 2 wale tm dent IM td Som od hae Net ede he nando Beatle AAS lle atl Coes ee ee 13. rights of a citizen claiming relief at law who is concerned but the citizen against whom a claim is asserted against him in a Court of law by another. That person does not voluntarily attend the Court and call evidence. He is forced to participate in the proceedings to avoid what he regards as an unjustified claim against him. It is as a result of his defending his position that the plaintiff musters and calls the evidence available to him in support of his case. The G@efendant adduces evidence to support his defence. The evidence may consist of documents belonging to and in the custody of strangers to the litigation. Such documents will be brought to court on subpoena. Initially they will be placed in the custody of the court awaiting their admission into evidence or their rejection. During that time the court has a discretion to permit their inspection by the parties to the litigation. If, when tendered in evidence, they are rejected, they will be held for return to the person who produced them to the Court. If accepted into evidence they remain in the possession of the Court for the purposes of the case, including any appeal proceedings. It is seen therefore that the documents passing into evidence do so, partly at least, as a consequence of the defendant's failure to concede the validity of the plaintiff's claim. Thus they come into the custody of the Court as a result of the Court being accessible to the plaintiff and exercising its jurisdiction to consider and Sen meena ree ee mn ee eee - ewe ee eee ee ee peer wn rncandat) apt team a aes lta tidak ama AMI CINTA ANA RLS salman MR ON Lal Materia eeernnaen mb FeIM alr We teak! tly prmetmatbnehaky mast alt Mn = Athen wa Rca me" meee e MnneRIme dW Ree WAAR rw date ary Sm OTR Ne Neher Rete Wier bits LS a> « 14. perhaps enforce the plaintiff's claim. The defendant is there only to defend himself. And it is an important aspect of public policy that a person sued by an adversary on a claim, the validity of which he challenges, be free to defend himself. A fear that to proceed with his defence would involve disclosures to strangers which might be injurious to his interests would be in conflict with that freedom. Alongside these considerations there is the principle, also supported by public policy, that the proceedings in courts of law be open to the public. Scott v. Scott [1913] Ac 417; McPherson v. McPherson [1936] AC 177. The policy is to permit the conduct of judicial proceedings to be seen and heard so that confidence of the public in the impartiality and thoroughness of judicial proceedings may be promoted and maintained. But this aspect of public policy is general and not directed to the issues in any particular case. That it may enable a stranger to those issues to hear evidence which he can use to his advantage on another occasion is but incidential to the public freedom to hear and see, but not the purpose thereof. Accordingly, if the stranger, whose attendance at the Court was achieved by reference to this general aspect of policy, becomes, or perhaps always was, an adversary of one of the parties it is not apparent that he should have privileges to pursue his private advantage not being his interest as a mere member of the public. And of course even the right to be present is sometiomes denied to members of the public because of the secret or confidential Se ten eg errr te ere ea ne pene te ne ee ee me me ee ee -- on ree ee men VL ede ner lit AS ie eth MEM REIN ane ate Bali Ment rina erse ith Ea aap dan tee rie ramen terete) Lan alae nd atale Re Re a nN EE ON a 8 Med nbn rete anata he a haem - i iF 15. nature, to one or both = parties, of the evidence. Accordingly, when a person interested for private purposes seeks to pursue those purposes by seeking access to the documents held by the Court for the purposes of litigation between other persons, it is difficult to see any good reason for permitting him to have such access. I would think that where those purposes include the use of the information gained from such access to pursue a course at law in support of a claim against one or both of the parties the justification for such access is not apparent. It is to be remembered that the principle that proceedings in courts of law be open to the public is always subject to the requirements of the administration of justice: Scott v. Scott (supra) In this case the entity seeking access is the Commission. It knows the nature of the litigation. Its disclosed and only interest is that it hopes the contents of the documents sought will help it to establish contraventions of the Act by one or more of the parties now being sued by it. Its inspection of the documents would be by its own admission a mere fishing expedition. What the Commission argues, however, is that the documents to which access is sought by it are public documents and not confidential and therefore it is entitled to inspect the documents. The issue is whether any of the documents to which access is sought should be regarded as confidential pursuant to 0.46 - staal? olan Pet eS Lowen ey Aan eke ay Mh tas ge eed FIs kiln a AL nee tah mnt ae tn Lr tentd fs Pitan at Rants etl Lama stiminanlnnebetreterinanitirey WY Sebame waa rarirehiitns = Seitattaster art aT RS med, writs xancctaaly - 16. rv.6(1)(a). There is the further aspect of public policy to which consideration must be given. That is that wrongdoers should be punished. It might promote the proper conduct of business dealings and affairs by enhancing the possibility of punishment for contravention of the Act if the Commission were given access to documents such as those now under consideration. In this conflict of policies it is my view that that most requiring implementation in the circumstances before me is that a litigant against whom a citizen has made a claim shall be able to conduct his defence before the Court without fear that the court itself may assist an adversary of his to gather information to be used against him. I do not think that it can be said that there is anything in the nature of a right in a person who has a potential claim against another to use the court, including the court in its capacity as the custodian of documents during and for the purpose of particular litigation, as a source of information to be used by him in some respect adverse to his interests. Still less is there anything in the nature of a right in such a person to seek the active assistance of the court in his search for such information. I take note of the submission that documents not specifically expressly referred to in 0.46 r.6 are prima facie "public", but a discretion is retained by the Ne nA Pn RGN Inne re — fete bee Let ed Bee eat ree es eee te eh ark we Ne be ate eh Tee atk tt EO mat is Det did ie NO SR Ob Lar EN Pe eA Wa an bee eon Mme er Ee GR alr det arr Wt irtadihanar er! 17. Registrar and the Court to treat those documents as confidential between the parties where circumstances dictate that they should be so treated. The freedom of access to the Court, particularly of persons who are sued, to pursue their defence according to the procedures of the court without fear that that process will expose them to the risk that the court will assist persons having interests adverse to them by giving access to information in documents held by the court during the currency and for the purposes of the litigation, must, to my mind, be very precious as an aspect of public policy. The public nature of the hearing for the purposes which it serves does not conflict with this. Nor do I consider that in this case the interest republicae in the due punishment of wrongdoers would justify the disclosure by the Court to the Commission of documents in its possession for the purpose of the exercise of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in a civil claim by one citizen against another. I do not overlook that the purposes of the Commission in seeking access to the documents are to support a civil action rather than criminal process by it against one or more of the defendants in this case. However, that action is to seek the imposition of a penalty in respect of conduct which is forbidden by the Act. And it is the assistance of the Commission as an entity having responsibilities in that . Meek we ube ek Te ae ee, enriches ne nel tt te ate me ate Pat at nee OO nee etna be tin te eat I ROLL LAL tier Ll Nae ALE Cet BNE ane ne 18. respect which is in issue. However, although it was my view, as expressed for the purposes of an interlocutory application by defendants for security for costs, that the plaintiff's prospect of success in their action was good, there is not and might never be any finding that any defendant has contravened any provision of the Act. It appears to be the intention of rr.5 and 6 of 0.46 that with respect to documents in the custody of the Registrar other than those referred to in paras (a) to (q) of sub-rule (1) it is the duty of the registrar on being requested to permit a stranger to the litigation to search in his registry for, or to inspect, documents to consider whether it would be appropriate for him to permit such search and inspection. He would be required to consider whether such documents should be treated as confidential to the parties. Such a question could only be decided by reference to the legitimate interests of the parties to the litigation in the maintenance of privacy against the person seeking to search and inspect. In some cases such as where trade secrets are concerned there would be special reasons for confidentiality. In cases of a more general nature, including this case, however the considerations of public policy discussed above would be relevant. The purpose of the stranger's request and the documents sought to be inspected would be relevant. What might be confidential to the parties as against a person with interests adverse to the parties or a — -- eee mee had pes La nt nl lla Ma St Aeterna Alain cena, oeAeAae! Learnt bomb otinde ss ent inier e Phones Mate d craton . »* « 19. one of them might not be confidential against a research student. In the circumstances of this case once the nature and purpose of the "stranger" was made known the appropriate decision would be that the request for the search and inspection of certain documents be refused. There is no dispute that the question now arises before me pursuant to the intimation of the Registrar to the parties and under 0.46 r.é(1)(a). Order 46 r.6(1)(a)-(g) appears to concern documents which have not passed into evidence in the course of the proceedings. All other documents appear to be in the category of documents which are prima facie public but which either the Registrar or the Court may consider to be confidential to the parties. As stated above there is no contest between the parties concerning the transcript or the Court register (i.e. the public register). Therefore I would order that the Commission have access to those two items. Having regard to my views as to the prevailing public policy in the circumstances of this case I regard as confidential between the parties, the exhibits, the index of the cover of the court file and all correspondence and like documents on file from the parties and non-parties. The index contains the names of persons who have made the Tom OT penne wenn ne Se -- --- - a aL MaLK OTE SS St AeA as Mt Man ETRE ns AD te a Pama pend tee dette ee erent ne paneer tiing Se etd areata burnt eam Pi enh aD Haka a ot Cal AEE ee tn ae tee Hn aS et wel, ' w & 20. affidavits in the course of the proceedings I do not consider that relevant policy should operate to deny access to the Commission of items 5(1) - (11) of Part A of annexure A. Those documents do no more than indicate the existence and course of a proceeding. Otherwise I agree with the terms of access granted by the District Registrar and would only add that in relation to the documents referred to in Part A2,3 and 5(12) and Part C of the Registrar's intimation that access be restricted to the parties' legal advisers who in relation thereto will bear in mind the principles espoused in Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd. [1977] 3 WLR 63. In the order of the Court the document referred to as the Registrar's intimation is identified by the description "Annexure A to the affidavit of James Rodon King sworn the fourteenth day of August 1983 and filed herein." #4 i. Smimers : ? Lovet Bfre fea | Vir ee ei ee ae et . -— ' { RT eer ne ee Sonya imrne em - - - . --- i cere