romastctt > to, QAL / 24... Cue eo. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION CORAM PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 31 MAY 1988 BETWEEN: BEAUMONT J LiMiTED OIsTe+Rutions No.G989 of 1988 wee ewe ALAN BOND First Applicant BOND MEDIA LIMITED Second Applicant BOND CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED Third Applicant QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LIMITED Fourth Applicant CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING YSTE W.A.) PTY. LIMITED Pifth Applicant NORTHWEST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Sixth Applicant DARWIN BROADCASTERS PTY. LIMITED Seventh Applicant AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Note: Upon the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the respondent be restrained, until further order, from holding the inquiry described in para.l of the application for an order of review. The costs of this application for interim relief be the applicants' costs in the proceedings. The final hearing of the application for an order of review be expedited. 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 GENERAL DIVISION CORAM PLACE: DATE: BEAUMONT J SYDNEY 31 MAY 1988 BETWEEN: ) ) ) No. G989 of 1988 ) ) ALAN BOND First Applicant BOND MEDIA LIMITED Second Applicant BOND CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED Third Applicant QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LIMITED Fourth Applicant CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING EM eA.) PTY. LIMITED Fifth Applicant NORTHWEST RADIO PTY. LIMITED Sixth Applicant DARWIN BROADCASTERS PTY. LIMITze> =—"—i'"'"<"'(C!" Seventh Applicant AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (On Application for interim Relief) Before the Court is an application by the first applicant, Mr. Alan Bond, and a number of companies associated with Mr. Bond, seeking a stay of an inquiry being conducted by the respondent, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The application is brought within proceedings recently instituted by the applicants seeking judicial review, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, of certain decisions and conduct of the Tribunal under the Broadcasting Act 1942 ("the Act"). The background to the present application is as follows. On 5 February 1988, the Tribunal wrote to Bond Media Holdings Ltd., informing it that the Tribunal had examined and considered an unedited tape of the interview given by Mr. Bond on the programme "A Current Affair" on 22 January 1988; that the Tribunal had also examined the transcript of the recent review of the commercial television licence QTQ-9; that the Tribunal had decided to hold an inquiry into the issues raised; and that the issues for the inquiry were being settled and would be forwarded when finalised. According to a news release then forwarded, the Tribunal had decided to hold an inquiry into matters relating to the "Bond-owned radio and television stations." On 25 February 1988, the Tribunal forwarded to the applicants' solicitors a notice of inquiry under the Act in respect of radio and television stations associated with Mr. Bond. Five commercial radio stations and the one television station were specified. The notice stated: "This inquiry follows the viewing by the Tribunal of an unedited tape of an interview given by Mr Alan Bond on the program "A Current Affair" on 22 January 1988. The Tribunal also examined the transcript of the last QTQ-9 renewal. The issues which will be addressed during the inquiry are as follows: 1. Whether anything connected with the payment of $400,000 in settlement of a defamation action by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen against Queensland Television Limited has any implications as_ to the suitability of companies associated with Mr Alan Bond to hold the above broadcasting licences. In this context it will be considered whether Mr. Bond and companies associated with him are fit and proper persons to hold the above licences. 2. Whether it would be advisable in the public interest for the Tribunal to do any of the following: (a) suspend any of the said licences associated with Mr. Bond; (b) revoke any of the said licences; (c) impose or vary conditions on any of the said licences. 3. Such other matters relevant to the inquiry as the Tribunal sees fit. Other television and radio licences owned by companies associated with Mr Alan Bond are as follows: TV Radio TCN SYDNEY 2UE SYDNEY GTV MELBOURNE 3AK MELBOURNE FNQ CAIRNS AREA 6PM PERTH TNQ TOWNSVILLE AREA 6GE GERALDTON STW PERTH These licences are currently the subject of other inquiries to which the issues canvassed in this inquiry will be relevant. Any person wishing to make a submission on these issues may lodge it with the Tribunal by 13 April 1988..." By letter dated 1 March 1988, the applicants' solicitors asked the Tribunal to clarify the reference, in its notice, to the "suitability of companies associated with Mr. Alan Bond" to hold the licences. The solicitors enquired whether this was limited to the question of fitness and propriety or was intended to encompass other questions. By letter dated 9 March 1988, the Tribunal advised that this statement was not so limited but "may encompass other questions such as management capabilities." On 31 March, the applicants' solicitors wrote to the Tribunal seeking, inter alia, particulars of the issues' the Tribunal proposed to consider in connection with the payment of $400,000.00. On 8 April, the Australian Government Solicitor replied stating that he was unable to provide the information sought as preliminary inquiries were still continuing and public submissions had not then been received by the Tribunal. It was stated that the Tribunal was expected to hold a directions hearing in early May; and that the Australian Government Solicitor expected to be ina position to discuss with the applicants' solicitors the information they required before that time. On 4 May, the Australian Government Solicitor wrote to the applicants' solicitors, referring to the directions given by the Tribunal on 2 May and forwarding "proofs" or "summaries" of evidence of seven witnesses. By letter dated 5 May, the applicants' solicitors again sought "full particulars of the issues sought to be raised in these proceedings..." Specific references were made to the "proofs" or "summaries" of evidence. By his reply dated 5 May, the Australian Government Solicitor said that the Tribunal had not then concluded its investigations preliminary to the public inquiry in this matter being held; in particular, answers to written questions had not then been received from Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The letter further stated, inter alia: "In an effort to assist you, I set out below the issues which counsel assisting the Tribunal currently perceives to arise within the issues nominated by the Notice of Inquiry : 1. Mr. Bond's belief as to the truth or substantial truth of the story broadcast on 2 February 1983 on QTQ 9, Brisbane, and the basis or bases of that belief. 2. Whether there were facts concerning the truth of the story of which Mr. Alan Bond was unaware and whether Mr. Bond took reasonable steps to acquaint himself with those facts. 3. Whether the defamation action instituted by Sir Joh Bijelke-Petersen in consequence of that story was being actively prosecuted by him prior to the acquisition of QTL by a company associated with Mr. Bond. 4. The advice possessed by QTL and its defamation insurers as to prospects of success and/or extent of potential damages in relation to the defamation action. 5. The nature of the conversations between Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Mr. Bond, or persons associated with Mr. Bond, touching upon the defamation writ. 6. . Whether those conversations amounted to a demand by Sir Joh for settlement of the defamation writ having regard to factors other than the legal merits of the defamation action. 7. The circumstances of Sir Edward Lyons' and Mr. Peter Gallagher's appointment to the QTL Board. 8. Sir Edward Lyons' disclosure to the QTL Board of his knowledge of, and involvement in, the facts which contributed the basis for the story broadcast on 2 February 1983. 9. Sir Edward Lyons' purpose in raising the subject of the Bjelke-Petersen writ on the QTL Board. 1o. The advice taken by Mr. Bond as to the appropriateness of the settlement reached with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. ll. The extent of inquiry made by Mr. Bond into the likely level of damages were QTL to fail in its defence of the defamation action. 12. The sum paid by way of settlement of the defamation action and the person who paid that sun. 13. The extent to which QTL Board members were kept aware of the settlement negotiations and their outcome. 14. The meaning to be ascribed to Mr. Bond's remarks made to Ms. Jana Wendt, particularly in relation to evidence given by Mr. Bond before the Tribunal in 1986. 15. The circumstances in which the programme, which had originally broadcast the story on 2 February 1983, was terminated by QTQ management. You will appreciate the abovementioned issues cannot be regarded as finally delimiting the scope of the inquiry, and that further relevant issues might arise in light of evidence given at the hearing = or information provided to the Tribunal." By a letter dated 6 May, the applicants' solicitors disputed that the 5 May letter gave particulars of the case to be met by the applicants - "[i]t merely lists 15 topics about which Presumably evidence will be given, and describes them as 'issues'. Please provide proper particulars forthwith..." On the same day, the Australian Government Solicitor replied, and after contending that the applicants had already been provided with a "comprehensive list of issues which counsel currently perceives to arise within the parameters set by the Notice of Inquiry", stated: "I remind you that the Tribunal's Inquiry is not in the nature of ordinary litigation. There is no question of presenting a "case" against your client. The essence of the Inquiry is the knowledge that the Bjelke-Petersen defamation action was settled for a substantial sum, that Mr Bond earlier gave evidence thereon to the Tribunal and then subsequently made certain comments in relation to the settlement to Ms Jana Wendt. What the Inquiry will look at is whether in all the circumstances surrounding those events, a particular conclusion should be drawn. In this regard, neither I nor Counsel assisting the Tribunal have any views whatever. "Particulars" of any issues will emerge as_ the Tribunal's preliminary investigations unfold and in the course of evidence given by witnesses at the Inquiry." On 12 May, the Australian Government Solicitor wrote to the applicants' solicitors as follows: "I refer to my letter dated 5 May 1988. I now set out below a revised list of issues which counsel assisting the Tribunal currently perceives to arise within the parameters nominated by the Notice of Inquiry: 1. Mr. Bond's belief as to the truth = or substantial truth of the story broadcast on 2 February 1983 on QTOQ 9, Brisbane, and the basis or bases of that belief. 2. Whether there were facts concerning the truth of the story of which Mr. Alan Bond was unaware and whether Mr. Bond took reasonable steps to acquaint himself with those facts. 3. Whether the defamation action instituted by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in consequence of that story was being actively prosecuted by him prior to the acquisition of QTL by a company associated with Mr. Bond. 4. The advice possessed by QTL and its defamation insurers as to prospects of success and/or extent of potential damages in relation to the defamation action. 5. The nature of the conversations between Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Mr. Bond, or persons associated with Mr. Bond, touching upon the defamation writ. 6. Whether those conversations amounted to a demand by Sir Joh for settlement of the defamation writ having regard to factors other than the legal merits of the defamation action. 7. The circumstances of Sir Edward Lyons' and Mr. Peter Gallagher's appointment to the QTL Board. 8. Sir Edward Lyons' disclosure to the QTL Board of his knowledge of and involvement in the facts which contributed the basis for the story broadcast on 2 February 1983. 9. Whether Sir Edward Lyons raised the subject of the Bjelke-Petersen writ while a member of the QTL Board, and if so far (sic) what purpose. lo. The advice taken by Mr. Bond as to_ the appropriateness of the settlement reached with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. 11. The extent of inquiry made by Mr. Bond into the likely level of damages were QTL to fail in its defence of the defamation action. 12. The sum paid by way of settlement of the defamation action and the person who paid that sun. 13. The extent to which QTL Board members were kept aware of the settlement negotiations and their outcome. 14, The meaning to be ascribed to Mr. Bond's remarks made to Ms. Jana Wendt, particularly in relation to evidence given by Mr. Bond before the Tribunal in 1986. 15. The circumstances in which the programme, which had originally broadcast the story on 2 February 1983, was terminated by QTQ management. 16. The circumstances surrounding the non-broadcast on 22 January 1988 on the programme "A Current Affair" of a segment of an interview between Mr. Alan Bond and Ms. Jana Wendt which had been broadcast on 21 January 1988 as a promotion for the programme to be broadcast on 22 January 1988. You will notice that the above list is in substantially similar terms to that supplied to you on 5 May 1988. However, I draw your attention to the changed wording in issue 9 and the inclusion of a new issue 16. You will appreciate that the abovementioned issues cannot be regarded as finally delimiting the scope of the inquiry, and that further relevant issues might arise in light of evidence given at the hearing or information provided to the Tribunal." On 9 May, the Tribunal inquiry opened. The Chairman (Ms. Deidre O'Connor) announced that the Tribunal was conducting an inquiry pursuant to s.17C of the Act and referred to the terms of the notice of the inquiry previously mentioned. The hearing continued for some days thereafter. During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the applicants again pressed for particulars of the case sought to be made against then. By letter dated 24 May, the applicants' solicitors wrote to the Australian Government Solicitor in these terms: "...Following an invitation by Senior Counsel Assisting the Tribunal, we reiterate our request that we be provided with full particulars of each of the issues the subject of this inquiry. Without limiting the generality of the above request could you please advise as follows: l. Which substantive powers are proposed to be exercised by the Tribunal? 2. Please identify each person or corporation who it will be alleged or suggested are not fit and proper persons to hold a broadcasting licence. 3. Please state in respect of (a) Mr. Bond, and (b) each person referred to in 2 above, in which manner or respect each such person is not a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. 4. Please state the facts and material relied upon to support the allegations or suggestions that each such person is not a fit and proper person. 10. 5. Please state the terms of any conditions which it will be proposed should be imposed on any licence. 6. Please identify each person or corporation who it will be alleged or suggested does not have the requisite management capability. 7. Please state in respect of (a) Mr. Bond, and (b) each person referred to in 2 above, in what manner or respect such person does not have the requisite management capability. 8. Please state the facts and material relied upon to support the allegation or suggestion that each such person does not have the requisite management capability. 9. Please confirm that the "suitability" referred to in the Notice of Inquiry refers only to fitness and propriety and the requisite management capability. On 25 May, the Australian Government Solicitor replied: ",..You asked to be "provided with full particulars of each of the issues the subject of this inquiry". The issues remain those set out in the Notice of Inquiry. The factual issues perceived to arise by Counsel Assisting within these general issues are set out in our letter of 5th instant. Counsel's perception now is that the following additional issues have emerged during the hearing:- a) Whether Mr. Bond believed that Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen was in a position of influence in relation to Mr. Bond's commercial interests in Queensland. b) Whether Mr. Bond believed that payment of the sum of $400,000 to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was justified in terms only of a settlement of Sir Joh's defamation action against QTL. ec) Whether Mr. Bond sought to have Sir Joh accept payment of $400,000 in a manner which would have attributed $50,000 only to the settlement of the defamation action, and which would have concealed the payment of the further sum of $350,000. 11. d) Was there a concerted attempt by Mr. Bond and others in 1986 to persuade the ABT falsely that the payment of $400,000 was made in consequence of a genuine belief on the part of those persons that that sum was a proper and justified amount to pay in settlement of Sir Joh Bijelke-Petersen's defamation action? e) Alternatively, was the evidence given by any person to the ABT in 1986 on the subject of the basis of the said settlement less than candid and honest, and if so, in what way? In the event that adverse findings fail to be made against Mr. Bond on issues the Tribunal may need to consider the following:- i) Have Mr. Bond and those associated with him displayed the requisite standards of candour and honesty required of the holders of public broadcasting licences in the giving of their evidence to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal during hearing into the renewal of certain licences in 1986? ii) Has Mr. Bond exhibited a pattern of conduct such as to require action by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in relation to _ the radio and television licences held by Mr. Bond? Turning to the numbered paragraphs of your letter I advise as follows :- i. The question of whether any (and if so which) substantive powers are to be exercised by the Tribunal must await the factual determinations. I understand that the Tribunal has not formed any intent to exercise any substantive power adversely to the interests of the licensee at this stage. Should that position change appropriate notice will be given to you and opportunity afforded you to be heard. 2. No determination that any person. or corporation is not fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence has been made. Should that situation be reached you will be given notice of the provisional intent to make that finding and opportunity to be heard will be afforded you. 3@4 See answer to 2 above. 12. 5. Should the Tribunal reach a tentative view at some stage that it would be appropriate to impose conditions on any licence, notice of that tentative view will be given to you, and opportunity to be heard will be afforded you. 6,7 & & See answer to 2 above. 9. This is confirmed." (The reference, in the first paragraph of this letter, to the letter "of 5th inst." was intended to read "of Sth inst., as amplified by the letter of 12th inst.") On 26 May, the applicant sought from the Tribunal a direction that counsel assisting the Tribunal provide to the applicants the particulars sought in the 24 May letter. On 27 May, the Tribunal refused to give the direction for the following reasons: "Having examined all of the correspondence and _ the Notice of Inquiry we do not consider it appropriate to make the direction sought as it is our view that the Australian Government Solicitor's letter of 25 May 1988 does give the particulars sought in the licensees' solicitor's letter of 24 May 1988. We do wish to add, however, that in so far as the Australian Government Solicitor's letter of 25 May 1988 purports to set out the present thinking of the Tribunal, it does so accurately. We have not formed any intent to exercise any of our substantive powers under the Broadcasting Act 1942 in a manner adverse to the licensees. ould that position change we shall inform the licensees before finally deciding whether to exercise any of our powers giving the licensees adequate opportunity to place material before us and to make submissions." The Tribunal then indicated that its inquiry would proceed on 31 May. 13. Judicial review is now sought of this decision and of the conduct of the Tribunal in proceeding with its inquiry without giving particulars of the case to be made against' the applicants. On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that it will be denied natural justice unless it is adequately informed of the case it has to meet. It is first necessary to examine the statutory scheme. Inquiries by the Tribunal are dealt with by Division 3 of Part II of the Act. Where the Tribunal receives an application under the Act requesting the exercise of any of its "substantive" powers (e.g. the power to vary, revoke or impose a condition of a licence under 8.85 or to suspend or revoke a licence under 8.88(1) (see 6.17A(2)(c) and (d)), or proposes to exercise any of its substantive powers otherwise than on such an application, the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the requested or proposed exercise of the power. Inquiries under s5.17C(1) are also dealt with by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Inquiries) Regulations ("the Regulations"). Public notice of the inquiry is to be given by the Tribunal (Reg.9(1)). The notice shall, inter alia, "specify the issues to be considered in the inquiry" (Reg.9(3)(b)). Where the Tribunal is satisfied that the issues to be considered should be changed, the Tribunal shall determine new issues (Reg.12(1)). The Tribunal shall, as _ soon as practicable, give notice of the new issues (Reg.12(2)). In order to obtain interim relief, a party must ordinarily demonstrate that his claim raises a question of fact or law which is "serious" in the sense that it is at least 14. arguable and not a frivolous point or one obviously without substance. If this can be shown, it is next necessary for the grant of an interlocutory restraint that the balance of convenience calls for intervention by the Court. This is a discretionary matter which requires a weighing of the competing claims for prejudice involved in granting, or refusing, to intervene before the hearing of the claim when the substantive issues raised by the claim can be finally determined (see Faingold v. Zammit (1984) 1 F.C.R. 87). In my opinion, the applicants have demonstrated that a number of serious and important questions will arise for determination on the final hearing. These questions include the following: (a) The meaning of the words "[w)here the Tribunal proposes to exercise any of its substantive powers" where used in s.17C(1) of the Act, and, in particular, the meaning, in this context, of "proposes". On behalf of the Tribunal, it is submitted that "proposes" there means "propounds" or "put forward for consideration". But "propose" may also mean to "intend". The Macquarie Dictionary suggests the following meaning of "propose": "1. to put forward (a matter, subject, case, etc.) for consideration, acceptance, or action: to propose a new method; to propose a toast. 2. to pu orward Or suggest as some ng to be done: he roposed that a messenger be sent. 3. to present ta person) for some position, office, membership, etc. 4. to put before oneself as something to be (b) (c) 15. done; to design; to intend. 5. to present to the mind or attention; state. 6. to propound (a question, riddle, etc.) 7. to make a proposal, esp. of marriage. 8. to formor entertain a purpose or design." The true character of the inquiry. On behalf of the applicants, it is contended that the inquiry is an investigation of the kind which may lead to a decision which will directly affect valuable rights in the form of their statutory licences. In such a case, "one might sensibly speak of an issue to be determined, although not of any issue between parties" (per Gibbs C.J. in National Companies and Securities Commission v. News Corporation Ltd. (1984) 156 C.L.R. 296 at p.309). Counsel for the Tribunal, on the other hand, argue that the investigation being undertaken is of the same kind as that conducted by the National Companies and Securities Commission and considered in the News Corporation Case, supra, that is to say, "there is no issue to be decided; the hearing is designed to discover facts which may or may not lead to further action being taken; no finding of fact or decision need be made; and the procedure is not an adversary one but inquisitional" (per Gibbs C.J., ibid). Whether, assuming the rules of natural justice apply, the applicants have been given reasonable notice of the case they have to meet. This involves an examination of the whole of the correspondence. The correspondence (a) (e) 16. must be read against the background of the Tribunal's claim that it is not bound, at this stage at least, to provide the applicants with any such particulars. The applicants say that the information given in the Tribunal's letters does not cover the ground required and, so far as it goes, is confusing. To determine whether this complaint is justified calls for a detailed examination of the whole of the correspondence. This 15 a matter for the determination of the trial Judge at the final hearing and, of course, I express no opinion on it. Whether any breach of Regs. 9 or 12 has occurred. It will be recalled that Reg. 9(3)(b) requires the Tribunal to specify the issues and that Reg.12 imposes an on-going duty on the Tribunal in this regard. Again the applicants complain of a failure by the Tribunal to identify the real issues. Again, the resolution of this question must await the trial depending as it does upon a consideration of the whole of the correspondence. Whether there is here a relevant decision of the Tribunal susceptible of judicial review. The applicants' primary case challenged the decision of the Tribunal to proceed with its hearing without providing any further information to the applicants. It is submitted on behalf of the Tribunal that these proceedings are fatally flawed because the direction sought from the Tribunal on 26 May was to be directed to 17. Counsel Assisting the Tribunal. It is contended on behalf of the Tribunal that a distinction should be made between, on the one hand the Tribunal and, on the other, counsel assisting it. It is true that the correspondence giving information to the applicants was written by the Australian Government Solicitor as solicitors instructing Counsel Assisting the Tribunal. On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that no relevant distinction should be drawn between the Tribunal on the one hand and Counsel Assisting and the Australian Government Solicitor on the other. The applicants argue that although the information in question was provided by the Australian Government Solicitor, this should be treated as material provided by the Tribunal. In other words, the applicants' argument runs, Counsel Assisting and the Australian Government Solicitor should be treated as a convenient and proper channel of communication between the Tribunal and the applicants. If this is so, the applicants contend, nothing should turn on the circumstance that the directions sought on 26 May were addressed to Counsel Assisting. The applicants submit that this is a matter of form only and that in substance what was gought on the 26 May was a direction that the Tribunal furnish the information required. In my view, the applicants have demonstrated the existence of a serious question to be tried in its claim that the 18. Tribunal's decision to proceed with the inquiry without providing any further information to the applicants should be judicially reviewed as a denial of natural justice or as otherwise contrary to law in the form of the Act and the Regulations. It is necessary next to consider where the balance of convenience lies. On behalf of the Tribunal, it is strongly urged that, as a matter of discretion, the Court should be reluctant to interrupt a hearing which commenced some weeks ago. Generally speaking, there are powerful discretionary reasons why the Court should not interfere with part-heard proceedings elsewhere. But in this case, the applicants are able to demonstrate a real prospect of significant prejudice if the hearing is not conducted in accordance with law. At risk are valuable licences which may be cancelled or revoked as a_ result of something which occurs in the course of a hearing which may be proceeding without the applicants being adequately informed of the case they have to meet. It is further argued on behalf of the Tribunal that interim relief should be withheld because of the applicants' delay in instituting these proceedings. Any suggestion of delay should be rejected. The applicants' correspondence shows their persistent attempts to clarify the issues. In the result, the balance of convenience favours the restraint of the Tribunal's hearing pending' the final determination of these proceedings. 19. For these reasons, this morning I granted the interim relief sought but also ordered the expedition of the final hearing. Costs were ordered to be the applicants' costs in the proceedings. Counsel and Solicitors for Applicants: Counsel and Solicitors for Respondent: Date of Hearing: Date Judgment delivered: I certify that this and the preceding GiGHTEEN (18) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of Mr. Justice Beaumont. Associate Kemre Crema Dated: 31 May 1988 A.B. Shand Q.C., with D. Catterns instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron P. Roberts with L. Katz instructed by Australian Government Solicitor 30 May 1988 31 May 1988