(26 ~ NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.G103 of 1986 www ew GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : TERANCE WILLIAM RIDGWAY First Applicant AND: CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED Second Applicant AND: CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION PLY. LIMITED First Respondent TERENCE GEORGE MORROW Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE: Fox J. DATE OF ORDER: 9 December 1986 WHERE MADE: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The second respondent pay to the Deputy Registrar of the Court within 21 days after service upon it of a copy of the order herein: ae ~ (a) for payment to the first applicant the sum of $201,529.83; and (b) for payment to the second applicant the sum of $88,792.56. 2. The second respondent pay the costs of the applicants of the proceedings, including the costs of the hearing on 9 December 1986. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.G103 of 1986 wee ew GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : TERANCE_ WILLIAM RIDGWAY First Applicant AND: CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION Pry. LIMITED Second Applicant CONSOLIDATED ENERGY CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED First Respondent TERENCE GEORGE MORROW Second Respondent CORAM: FOX J. DATE: 9 DECEMBER 1986 SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE) Since I delivered the principal judgment in this matter on 27 November last, there has been put before me evidence which establishes to my satisfaction that the second respondent, Terence George Morrow, was aware at all relevant times of the absence of title in the first respondent to grant the licences in question, and, indeed, that he was specifically warned orally and in writing that the title did not exist. I have used the word "title" as corresponding with the term used in the principal judgment in which I dealt simply with s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. There was little doubt, however, that other of the sections relied upon were applicable to the situation, and that s.75B of the Act applies in relation to the participation by the second respondent in contraventions of those other provisions. It seems to me, therefore, to flow, by a joint application of ss.82 and 753, that the second respondent is liable, with the first respondent, for the payment of the damaces which I have already assessed, and I order that judament be entered against him accordingly. His liability is joint. He should also be jointly liable with the first respondent for the costs of the proceedings, but he should be solely liable for the proceedings today. I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Fox. Dated: 9 December 1986 Counsel for the Applicant: Solicitors for the Applicant: Counsel for the Respondent: Date of supplementary hearing: Date supplementary judgment delivered: Mr F G Lever Messrs Moore & Bevins No appearance for respondent Sydney: 9 December 1986 Sydney: 9 December 1986 the