JUDGMENT No. 20712. Shs CrATCHWORDS TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer protection - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Passing off - Right to interlocutory injunction - Use of similar descriptive trade names - Two motels in small town - Applicants' older establishment called "Caboolture Motel" - Applicants seeking to restrain respondents from calling new establishment "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". Trade Practices Act 1974 5.52 CAROL YVONNE STREET & ANOR. trading as the "CABOOLTUPE MOTEL" V. JEDSMINSTER PTY.LTD. & ANOR. QLD. NO. G208 OF 1988 SPENDER J. BRISBANE 22 JUNE 1988. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Meet et et ee BETWEEN : QLD. G208 of 1988 CAROL YVONNE STREET and ANTHONY WINSTON STREET trading as the "CABOOLTURE MOTEL" Applicant JEDSMINSTER PTY. LTD. First Respondent AND: TURBOT ROMA GEORGE PTY. LTD. Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDEP JUDGE MAKING ORDER: SPENDER J. DATE OF ORDER: 22 JUNE 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. Upon the applicants, through their counsel, giving the usual undertakings as to damages, the first respondents by themselves and second or by their servants or agents or any of them be restrained until the trial of the action or earlier order from using by way of advertising or otherwise "Caboolture Hotel Motel", the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", or Caboolture Hotel Motel Inn" or any other words combining the word "Caboolture" with the words "Motel" or "Motor Inn", by reference to the business carried on at Morayfield Road, Morayfield, by respondent. the first tb « After fourteen days of today's date, the first and second respondents by themselves or by their servants or agents or any of them be restrained until the trial of the action or earlier order from using any signs, advertisements, stationery, staff uniforms and any other item wherein or whereon the words "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn" or "Caboolture Hotel Motel" or "Caboolture Hotel Motel Inn" or any other name containing the words "Caboolture" and "Motel" or "Motor Inn" in respect of the said business. 3. Each party have liberty to apply on reasonable notice. 4. The matter to be brought on again for directions on seven days' notice to the other parties. 5. Costs of and incidental to the application are reserved. Note: Settlement and entrv of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD. G208 of 1988 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: CAROL YVONNE STREET and ANTHONY WINSTON STREET trading as the "CABOOLTURE MOTEL" Applicant AND: JEDSMINSTER PTY. LTD. First Respondent AND: TURBOT ROMA GEORGE PTY. LTD. Second Respondent SPENDER J. BRISBANE 22 JUNE 1988. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The applicants, who trade as the "Caboolture Motel" in Caboolture, seek interlocutory relief. They claim against the first respondent:- "1. An interim injunction restraining the Respondent its servants or agents or any of them from continuing to use either by way of advertising Or otherwise, the names "Caboolture Hotel Motel" or "Caboolture Hotel-Motor Inn" or "Caboolture Hotel-Motel Inn" or any like name in reference to the business carried on by the Respondent at Morayfield Road, Morayfield in the State of Queensland; 2. An interim injunction compelling' the Respondent to forthwith remove from the premises situated at Morayfield Road, Morayfield and ceased (sic) the use of all signs, advertisements, stationery, staff uniforms and any other item whatsoever wherein or whereon the words "Caboolture Hotel-Motor Inn" or "Caboolture Hotel Motel" or "Caboolture Hotel Motel Inn" or like words are used in respect of the said business." The business now known as the "Caboolture Motel" has been carried on for approximately ten years, originally as the "Motel Caboolture". The name "Caboolture Motel" has been registered as a business name under the Business Names Act 1962 (Qld.) since 9 October 1985, and Mr. & Mrs. Street became the registered proprietors of that business on 1 August 1986 and have continued to conduct business under that registered business name to the present. Jedsminster Pty. Ltd. is the licensee of an hotel conducted at Morayfield Road, Morayfield. The second respondent, Turbot Roma George Pty. Ltd., is the registered proprietor of the land on which the hotel-motel business is conducted. The business opened on 21 December 1987. The nominee of the licensee is Mr. Walter Bennie. He is employed by the first respondent and manages the complex. There are sixteen motel style accommodation units. The licence is registered in the name "Morayfield Hotel-Motel". There had previously been an hotel on the Morayfield Road property which had conducted business for many years under the name of "Morayfield Hotel". This building was demolished and a modern complex, consisting of an hotel with a large drive-in bottle department as well as sixteen motel units, was constructed and commenced business in late 1987. On 19 January 1988, solicitors for the applicants wrote to the manager of the first respondent. That letter stated in part:- "Our client has noted that the business name "Caboolture Hotel Motel" appears on signs about the property at Morayfield, on clothing worn by certain staff members, in advertisements in local newspapers and is listed with telecom (sic) and is generally used to promote the business carried on at Morayfield. On a number of occasions our client has made bookings for guests, particularly interstate guests, only to find that the guests through obvious confusion, ended up staying at your premises. Our client is also continually receiving phone calls and correspondence intended for your business, again because of the confusion between the associated names." The letter indicated that fourteen days would be allowed for the removal of all signs, advertising material and listings with Telecom in respect of the name "Caboolture Hotel Motel". After some communication between the respective solicitors, the solicitors for the first respondent wrote on 9 March 1988 indicating that their client was "...agreeable to altering the name under which it trades to Caboolture Hotel". This letter was acknowledged on 11 March, and the solicitors for the applicants indicated:- ",..our client is prepared to allow a further 21 days to enable your clients to replace all the signs and other matters that may have any reference to the name "Caboolture Hotel Motel". However, we reserve our clients' rights to proceed if no action is taken during this time." On 29 April, the solicitors for the applicants again wrote complaining of the continued advertising as the "Caboolture Hotel Motel". There was further correspondence, and on 27 May 1988, the solicitors for the respondents wrote and said:- "We confirm that in accordance with previous correspondence the previous sign has been removed and replaced with a sign 'Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn'." The letter continued:- "Further, all other references to the previous name have now been deleted and all appropriate parties have been notified accordingly so that the future trading name of the business will be 'Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn'. We submit that, without any admission that the name ''Caboolture Hotel/Motel' could have been confused with your clients' business, in an abundance of caution ovr client has agreed to change the name to Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn." While the previous correspondence included reference to the removal of a sign, there is nowhere any earlier reference to an intention to carry on business under the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn"; in fact, the letter of 9 March 1987 is directly to the contrary. Ina letter dated 31 May 1988, the solicitors for Jedsminster Pty.Ltd. indicated:- ",..our client proposes to trade under the name 'Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn' and is prepared to give an undertaking to the Court that it will not use the name 'Caboolture Hotel Motel'. It is our contention that the other forms of restraints are too wide and our client is not prepared to give undertakings in those terms." The respondent had sought registration of the name "Caboolture Hotel/Motel", but this had been rejected by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. The rejection of the registration was accompanied by a statement that "[t]he name applied for could be confused with or mistaken for the presently registered Caboolture Hotel and Caboolture Motel". The evidence is largely silent as to who were or are the registered proprietors of the name "Caboolture Hotel", but one may infer from the yellow pages of the telephone directory which lists the name "Caboolture Hotel" at the address Morayfield Road, Morayfield, that they are entities associated with' the respondents or their predecessors. It is to be noted that, according to the white pages of the Caboolture telephone directory, a number of businesses with the word "Caboolture" in their name give an address as Morayfield Road, Morayfield, including "Caboolture Air Conditioning", and "Caboolture Autoland Mitsubishi". Caboolture is a small town situated some 45 kilometres north of Brisbane. In the general region of Caboolture there are a number of satellite communities such as Toorbul, Bribie Island, Morayfield and Beachmere. Caboolture has a primary school and a high school, train station and postcode. Morayfield likewise has a state school, high school, train station and postcode. The hotel-motel is located at Morayfield Road, Morayfield, about 200 metres south of the Caboolture/Morayfield boundary, on the southern entrance and exit road to Caboolture. The Caboolture Motel is approximately 1.5 kms. away, on Lower King Street, which is in the centre of Caboolture. It is situated on the main arterial road from the Bruce Highway into Caboolture. Since the hotel-motel commenced business, it has used, in one way or another, the names "Caboolture Hotel Motel", "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", "Caboolture Hotel/Motel Inn", "Morayfield Hotel/Motel" and "Wellers Hotel-Motel Inn". Up until 26 May 1988, a large neon sign contained the words "Caboolture Hotel Motel"; but on that day it was replaced by a similar sign bearing the words "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". Uniforms and the hotel letterhead previously used the name "Caboolture Hotel Motel". The advertisements for the Caboolture Hotel Motel are extensive and generally highlight the "specials" available at the liquor barn drive-in, as well as the family restaurant and the available entertainment. The advertisements variously referred to the hotel as the "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", the "Caboolture Hotel Motel", and ""Wellers Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". The address is given as Morayfield Road, Morayfield or as Morayfield Road, Caboolture. Mr. Street, the male applicant, deposes that on 27 January 1988 he received a letter at the "Caboolture Motel", addressed to the "Caboolture Hotel Motel", with the address being given as 4 Lower King Street, Caboolture. Mr. Street readdressed the letter and forwarded it on tg the respondents' hotel. He deposes that on 9 May 1988, a person from the Department of Social Security at Redcliffe was inquiring after a person who had allegedly stayed at the Motel on 29 April 1988. It appears that the inquiry ought to have been directed to the Caboolture Hotel Motel, but that the enquirer had received the telephone number of the Caboolture Motel. On 16 May 1988, persons mistakenly arrived at the premises of the applicants, but in fact had made a booking at the respondents' hotel. Mr. Street also deposes, on an information and belief basis, to an occasion when a person who had booked at the Caboolture Motel in February had mistakenly stayed at the Caboolture Hotel Motel. The Caboolture Motel is the only motel in Caboolture. It consists of ten self-contained units and a laundry, with a manager's residence and reception area. It is advertised in Jasons Queensland Accommodation Guide, the R.A.C.Q. motorists accommodation guide, and in the Caboolture Shire Information Guide, of which about 20,000 glossy copies are issued every six months. The applicants assert that carrying on the hotel-motel business as the "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn" constitutes misleading and deceptive conduct, in trade or commerce, contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. It is said that there are two aspects of this conduct: the first as to its capacity to mislead members of the public concerning the business conducted by the respondents and the business of the applicants, and secondly, as to the misdescription of the locality of the business of the respondents. It was then submitted that the applicants and the respondents are engaged in the same business in a relatively small community, that the "keyword" in the name of each business is the same, and that it is conducted in a field where consumers would not be expected to exercise a fine discrimination. It is clear that the businesses are by no means identical. The physical layout of each business is different. The hotel-motel complex has its drive-in liquor barn as an important part of its operation as well as the provision of entertainment and restaurant meals. The provision of motel type accommodation is but a facet of a much larger operation. The applicants' business, on the other hand is essentially smaller, and centred on the provision of accommodation, although meal facilities are available. The evidence concerning the operation of the Caboolture Motel uniformly points to a well-run and efficient business. In my view, it has acquired a not insignificant reputation, which has attached to the name "Caboolture Motel". The question is one of impression and of fact and degree, and regard must be had to the relevant section of the public which, for present purposes, consists of those people who are likely to require, or might want, accommodation, of a motel kind, in and around the district of Caboolture. The question is whether they are likely to be misled or deceived by the first respondent's conduct in using the name, "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", In Burswood Management Ltd. v. Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty.Ltd. (1985) 7 F.C.R. 186, Toohey J. succinctly summarised the law and then went on to comment on the difficulty involved in the use of descriptive words. He said, at p.190:- "Conduct infringes s.52 of the Trade Practices Act if it is misleading or deceptive or is Likely to mislead or deceive. This is a question of fact to be determined by the court; it is unnecessary to Prove that the conduct in question actually deceived or misled anyone: Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty.Ltd. v. Puxu Pty.Ltd. (1982) 149 C.b.R. I9L at . The class of consumers who may be misled in the present case is very much the public at large, having regard to the impact of newspaper advertising. The intention of the respondents is not relevant; the question is whether their conduct was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive: Hornsby Building Information Centre ety tt v. Sydney Buildin Information Centre Ltd. (1978) 140 C.L.R. 216 at 228. An applicant for relief must be associated, in the minds of members of the public or the relevant section, with a particular name or product otherwise conduct is not likely to mislead or deceive: Dairy Vale Metro Co-Operative Ltd. v. Brownes Dair ae (1981) 35 A.L.R. 494; Taco Co. of Australia Inc. v. Taco Bell Pty.Ltd. (1982) 4 A.L.R. L77. Conduct which mérely causes uncertainty in the minds of relevant members of the public does not contravene s. 52: Parkdale. Conduct is not misleading or deceptive unless it contains or conveys a misrepresentation: Taco. If a mame is no more than merely descriptive of a particular type of business, its use by others who carry on the same type of business does not deceive or mislead as to the nature of the business described: Hornsby at 230. But a name may be more than descriptive: it may relate to a commercial activity of the applicant or be 10. associated in the minds of members of the public with that activity and in that regard mislead." In my opinion there are various categories of persons who are likely to be misled or deceived by the first respondent's use of the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". One of those categories would include those who had learned of the "Caboolture Motel" from the personal recommendation of others. If the persons who received that recommendation were travelling past the respondents' "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", there would be at least some who would not only be confused or uncertain as to whether that was the establishment recommended to them, but would also believe that that was the place recommended. Caboolture is a small district with a small population and, for at least some of this category of persons, in my opinion it would make no difference whether the property were called the "Caboolture Hotel Motel", the "Caboolture Hotel~Motel Inn", or the "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". In my opinion, the evidence of an occasion when a person had in fact been booked at the "Caboolture Motel" but stayed (apparently quite happily) at the "Caboolture Hotel Motel", is but an illustration of the deception likely from the similarity of names. I think the physical differences between the two businesses and their buildings would be sufficient to prevent persons who had patronised one or the other from being misled or deceived into thinking that the other business was the one at which they had stayed. I think that persons who had not previously stayed at either place and who had heard of, read of, 11. or been recommended to the "Caboolture Motel", might, on seeing a business described as the Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn, be misled into thinking that that was the business that they had been told about or had read about. One has to recognise that it will not be on every occasion that the Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn will be so compendiously described. But here the primary word is "Caboolture". For many years the motel of the applicants was the only business in or near Caboolture offering motel type accommodation. It still is the only motel in Caboolture. Given the nature of the locality and its population, one ordinarily would not expect two Caboolture Motels. The use of the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn" has only very recently been adopted. In Bridges v. Bridge Stockbrokers Ltd. (1984) 4 F.C.R. 21, Sheppard J. at first instance was concerned with stockbroking businesses named "Bridges, Son & Shepherd" and "Bridge Stockbrokers Ltd.". There his Honour was not concerned with descriptive or geographical words, which is the cause of the real difficulties in this case. In concluding that the applicants were entitled to relief, he noted at p.36:- "Neither of the names in question is descriptive of the business of either undertaking. It is true that the company uses the word "Stockbrokers" but the word in question is "Bridge". It is the use of that word which may mislead members of the public. It follows that this case is different from cases such as Hornsby Building information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building information Centre LEAL {IST8) 140 C.L.R. 216 and Motorcharge Pty.Ltd. v. Motorcard Pty.Ltd. (1982) 42 A.L.R. where the names in question were descriptive of the businesses carried on by the parties in 12. those cases. It is well recognised that the task of an applicant for relief in a case where the name in question is descriptive of the business carried on is more difficult than it may be in other cases." Implicit in those observations is the conclusion that the task where descriptive words are used is not necessarily impossible. Shepperd J. observed, at p.37:- "Although the names ''Bridges, Son & Shepherd' and *Bridge Stockbrokers Ltd.' are apparently different when used in juxtaposition, people encountering one or other of them may not find them so different. That, in my opinion, applied not only to members of the public lacking familiarity with the stockbroking industry, but also to those engaged in it." A similar observation may be made in the present case. The names "Caboolture Motel" and "Caboolture Hotel Motor [Inn" are apparently different when used in juxtaposition, but people encountering one or other of them may not find them so different, and information obtained by reading accommodation guides, or from oral recommendations by others, is frequently only imperfectly recollected. When Bridges went on appeal, (1984) 4 F.C.R. 460, Smithers and Woodward JJ. noted at p.468:- "If one choses a name so close to that of an operator already in the business that confusion is probable, there will be a recurring need in normal business for care and discrimination. Where the Mame of that party is such as, in various circumstances, to carry additional overtones, then one is entering the area of misrepresentation. The overtones in this name are that, in the stockbroking business, you will find "Bridge" or 13. "Bridges" here and not elsewhere. To throw that into the public arena, where there are people with no duty or inclination to exercise a fine discrimination in the matter, nor any feeling of necessity for so doing, creates a likelihood of it being understood as saying what it seems to say. Such persons would be unlikely to expect that the company would claim to be the "Bridge" of the stockbroking world unless it was claiming also to be "Bridges". Their Honours went on to note, at the same page:- "(the learned primary judge]...was required to, and did, direct his mind to the assessment of the degree of probability that relevant persons might by reason of the trading by the company in the name 'Bridge Stockbrokers Limited' be led into error, and to the numerical strength of that body of persons. It was his decision that significant numbers of the public who in various capacities have occasion to deal with stockbrokers are likely to be misled or deceived (not merely confused) by the company's conduct in using the 'Bridge' name. In our opinion the learned judge had before him circumstances from which the inference he drew might properly be drawn. In the course of his judgment, his Honour said that he had 'given the matter a good deal of anxious consideration' and engaged in 'a not insubstantial judgmental exercise'. He stressed that, in the end, 'The matter must be one of impression. It is a question of fact and degree.' The case does seem to fall very close to the borderline between conduct which is misleading and deceptive within the meaning of the Act and conduct which is merely confusing. We have felt the same doubts which troubled his Honour but, at the end of the day, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion which he reached." I confess, in the circumstances of this case, to a similar anxiety but, in the end, am satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the conduct is not merely confusing but is conduct which is likely to mislead or 14. deceive, contrary to the Act. The second ground on which it was suggested that the use of the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn" is misleading or deceptive contrary to s.52 of the Act, was that it would mislead people into believing that the hotel-motel was in Caboolture, whereas, in fact, it is a short distance, about 200 metres, outside the boundary of Caboolture, in Morayfield. Shortly put, the choice of the primary descriptive word "Caboolture" in the name is misleading because, in fact, the hotel-motel complex is not in Caboolture. The Caboolture/Morayfield boundary is some 1.5 kilometres from the business premises of the applicant, and it is not impossible to imagine that, with further development, Morayfield reasonably might be regarded as a suburb of Caboolture. However, the suggestion was that, if a person were to make a reservation based on the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", they would find themselves outside Caboolture, and some 1.5 km. from the centre of Caboolture. If this were the sole basis of the application, I would not grant interlocutory relief. In my view, the misdescription as to locality is de minimis. In the entirety of the matter, however, it does have some significance. In this case, I have had to consider words that are not fancy or invented, but are descriptive or geographic. I have used the phrase "descriptive or geographic" 15. here and earlier, rather than simply "descriptive", because, while frequently a geographical word is descriptive of a connection between the business and the place where it is conducted, it is not precisely accurate to label the word "Caboolture" as descriptive of the hotel-motel business of the first respondents. The primary submission of the respondents was confined to the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn", although it was made plain that no concession was made that, in particular, the use of "Caboolture Hotel Motel" would constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. In Office Cleaning Services Ld. v. Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ld. (1946) 63 R.P.C. 39, (which was a passing off case), Lord Simonds said, at p.43:- "So long as descriptive words are used by two traders as part of their respective trade names, it is possible that some members of the public will be confused whatever the differentiating words may be...in Turton v. Turton (42 Ch. D.128) the possibility of blunders by the public was held not to disentitle the defendant from trading in his own name though the plaintiff had long traded in the same name. It comes in the end, I think, to no more than this, that where a trader adopts words in common use for his trade name, some risk of confusion is inevitable. But that risk must be run unless the first user is allowed unfairly to monopolise the words. The Court will accept comparatively small differences as sufficient to avert confusion. A greater degree of discrimination may fairly be expected from the public where a trade name consists wholly or in part of words descriptive of the articles to be sold or the services to be rendered." 16. This passage was referred to, with approval, by Stephen J. in Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd. (1978) 140 C.L.R. 216 at p.229, where he said:- "There is a price to be paid for the advantages flowing from the possession of an eloquently descriptive trade name. Because it is descriptive it is equally applicable to any business of a like kind, its very descriptiveness ensures that it is not distinctive of any particular business and hence its application to other like businesses will not ordinarily mislead the public." And later, "The risk of confusion must be accepted, to do otherwise is to give to one who appropriates to himself descriptive words an unfair monopoly in those words and might even deter others from pursuing the occupation which the words describe." Here, however, I am satisfied there is an established secondary meaning for the geographically descriptive name of the applicants' business. It was submitted by the respondent that the use of the word "hotel" describes a different kind of establishment and it was said that the differences in descriptive words used was sufficient to avert confusion. A difficulty, however, is that the principal descriptive word, "Caboolture", is not accurate. I do not think that slight differences concerning geographically descriptive words has anything like the same weight where one of the descriptive words is not in fact descriptive of the locality of the business. 17. I am satisfied that the applicants have established a serious question to be tried as to whether the conduct of the respondents amounts to conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. I am very conscious of the consideration that in many cases of interlocutory applications such as this, in a practical sense, the granting or refusal of interlocutory relief is decisive. I have therefore looked at the applicants' case for interlocutory relief carefully and, it must be said, with some anxiety. However, the mere fact that the name under which the business of the motel has been conducted for many years is a combination of a geographic description of the place at which the business is conducted and a word descriptive of the nature of the business does not mean that it is without a remedy to protect the goodwill attaching to that business. What it does mean is that one has to carefully analyse whether, in fact, conduct which is claimed to mislead or deceive, or which is said to be likely to mislead, really can be said to have that consequence. As to the balance of convenience, Toohey J. in Burswood Management Ltd. v. Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty.Ltd. (supra) noted at p.193:- "...if, as I hold, the use of the name Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel Pty.Ltd. is in breach of the Act, an assessment at a later stage of loss suffered by the applicants by the use of that name presents great difficulties." In my opinion a similar consideration obtains in the 18. present circumstances. The damage, including damage to the goodwill of the applicants, up to trial of the action would be very difficult to assess. The inconvenience and expense to the respondents in granting interlocutory relief to the applicants is not, on the evidence, by any means high. Mr. Bennie deposes that, if the name was required to be changed again, circulars would have to be sent out to regular customers of the mote] units, and to advertising publications such as "Jasons", which is an accommodation guide, and the Caboolture and Shire Gazette with the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau would have to be amended accordingly. Also, signs would have to be removed, and stationery and other printed material would have to be amended. The business has been operating under the name "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn" for only a short period. The first respondent did not change the name to "Caboolture Hotel" as was indicated to be the intention in the letter of 9 March 1988, but chose to adopt "Caboolture Hotel Motor Inn". In my view, the consideration of where the balance of convenience falls favours the grant of the interlocutory relief sought, on the usual undertaking as to damages. I will hear the parties on costs. { certify that this and the JF precedhiag pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Spender AT, i Associate. DatéqG = b) 68 Counsel for applicant: instructed by: Counsel for respondent: instructed by: Date of Hearing: Date of Judgment: 19. Mr. B.D. 0'Donnell Marshall & L'Estrange Mr. P.D.T. Applegarth Catt Smith 1 June 1988 22 June 1988