JUDGMENT No old { ie. 2 Go0ouceeDse000C000! cecenccecees IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG182 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: FASTWAY COURIERS (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 057 389 769 First Applicant ACACIA VIEW PTY LIMITED ACN 007 274 642 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS GEELONG Second Applicant ADELAIDE COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 065 962 398 Third Applicant ASHMORE COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 061 637 223 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS GOLD COAST Fourth Applicant B_& J WEATHERLEY PTY LIMITED ACN O61 701 353 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS SUNSHINE COAST Fifth Applicant COFFS HARBOUR COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 066 000 235 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS COFFS HARBOUR Sixth Applicant DENBAR ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED ACN 060 552 249 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS NEWCASTLE Seventh Applicant DETUMU_PTY LIMITED ACN 003 608 624 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS TOOWOOMBA Eighth Applicant FASTWAY COURIERS (OLD) PTY LIMITED ACN 057 811 211 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS BRISBANE Ninth Applicant GOLDCARM PTY LIMITED ACN 067 573 942 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS PORT MACQUARIE Tenth Applicant ILLAWARRA COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 064 481 974 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS WOLLONGONG Eleventh Applicant MELBOURNE COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 061 255 598 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS MELBOURNE and FASTWAY COURIERS BALLARAT Twelfth Applicant -2- NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 063 155 939 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS CANBERRA Thirteenth Applicant NSW COURIERS PTY LIMITED ACN 058 065 080 trading ag FASTWAY COURIERS SYDNEY Fourteenth Applicant W & J INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED ACN 009 496 137 trading as FASTWAY COURIERS TASMANIA Fifteenth Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION First Respondent STEVEN SHARP Second Respondent ROS_THOMAS Third Respondent IAN BOTTCHER Fourth Respondent TREVOR DEWHURST Fifth Respondent WARREN GRIGGS Sixth Respondent MARK HANNS Seventh Respondent BOB_SHAKESPEARE Eighth Respondent SAM TAYLOR Ninth Respondent HELEN WELLINGS Tenth Respondent 24NOV1998 =} BEFORE: GUMMOW J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 27 MARCH 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE )} HIS HONOUR: The first respondent, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ("the Corporation") owes its present -~3- constitution to the provisions of Part II of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. Section 25 provides, subject to a qualification not presently material, that the Corporation does not have the power to accept any payment or other consideration for the broadcasting or televising of any announcement, programme or other matter. Section 31 states that 'the Corporation shall not broadcast or televise advertisements". This is subject to the qualification in sub~ s. 31°(2) that the Corporation may, in certain circumstances, broadcast or televise announcements relating to proposed activities of the Corporation. The second, third and tenth respondents are persons associated with the production of a programme scheduled to be televised by the Corporation on Tuesday 28 March 1995, entitled "The Investigators". This is one of a series of programmes. The particular controversy concerns a segment of the programme which, it is suggested, would be about six minutes in length. This segment focuses upon the activities of the Fastway Couriers Group in a way which has brought complaint. This is an application for a continuation of interlocutory injunctive relief given by a Judge of the Court on Friday, 24 March 1995. The dispute as it reached the Court initially had its primary or immediate concern with a promotional announcement made by the Corporation for the programme scheduled for Tuesday 28 March. Orders were made including orders 3, 4, 5 - 4- and 6. Each is expressed as being in force up to and including today. As it transpires, nothing now turns upon orders 4, 5 and 6. That is to say, counsel for the Corporation and the other respondents whom I have mentioned do not object to the restraint upon them being extended until further order. The concession is not made by consent, but it is simply said that no opposition is presented to that course. There "is no appearance today for certain of the respondents, namely the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents. These are franchisees or former franchisees or persons having previously had business dealings, directly or indirectly, with Fastway Couriers (Aust) Pty Ltd ("Fastway Couriers"), the first applicant. The controversy has centred upon order 3 made by the primary Judge on 24 March. The text of that injunction is as follows: "Up to and including 27 March 1995 the first respondent, second respondent, third respondent and tenth respondent, and each of them, be restrained from publishing or broadcasting, by means of television, radio or by any other means whatsoever, statements to the effect that the 'businesses' of 'Fastway Couriers' are 'collapsing' or that 'a business relationship' with 'Fastway Couriers' has 'turned sour' and/or 'Fastway Courier franchisees businesses are worthless'." In terms, order 3 would fix not only upon the promotional announcement mentioned above, but also upon the proposed ~5 - programme itself. At the time the injunction was framed, the applicants did not have available to them the text of the current script for the segment in question. That was produced this morning, 27 March, in response to a notice to produce. It is now exhibit A, a copy of which is attached as Schedule A to these reasons. The availability of the script has brought with it a reconsideration of what the applicants now seek by way of continuation of injunctive relief after the expiry of order 3. As initially presented this morning, complaint was made of portions of the script in some 16 respects. That has now been narrowed and reduced to writing in a proposed order 3A. This points to 9 of those 16 matters and a copy of the proposed order 3A is also attached as Schedule B to these reasons. The grounds upon which the relief in terms of the proposed order 3A is. sought are first, contravention of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the TP Act") and second, an order to restrain the publication of defamatory material. This would involve the defamation law of the several States and Territories across which it would appear the broadcast will be received. The trade practices complaint brings with it a consideration of s. 65A of the Act. This was inserted in 1984. Several points were taken as to the proper construction -6- of s. 65A. In that regard, it is appropriate to bear in mind what was said by Gibbs CJ, Mason and Wilson JJ in their joint judgment in Cohen v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 61 ALJR 57 at 59: "It is not right to say that it is always the duty of the Court on an interlocutory application to decide a question of law upon which the decision of the case depends. No doubt if the question is one susceptible of resolution without further evidence, and the urgency of the matter does not render it impracticable to give proper consideration to the question, the desirable course will be to decide it. 'Ultimately, however, the course which the Court takes lies within its discretion." It is appropriate now to consider more closely the circumstances giving rise to the present complaints. Mr W.A. McGowan is a director of the first applicant, Fastway Couriers (Aust) Pty Ltd. There are in all 15 applicants. The thirteenth applicant is National Capital Couriers Pty Limited described in the affidavit evidence as "NCC". On the evening of 12 March 1995, Mr McGowan was returning to Australia from New Zealand on a Qantas flight. Immediately after leaving the customs area at Sydney International Airport, he was confronted by persons, including the third respondent, and a conversation took place which was filmed. Points (d), (g) and (i) of the proposed order 3A complain of a use made of remarks in the course of this 'confrontation', to use that term. -7- The first applicant is indirectly an Australian subsidiary of a New Zealand corporation Fastway Express Parcels (NZ) Limited. The evidence suggests that the New Zealand company has developed a successful courier franchise system in that country. Operations commenced in 1983. A national Fastway Couriers franchise system was established in Australia in 1993. The franchising system involves applications by a company er individuals for the purchase of franchising rights to operate a business in a specific geographical area. These franchisees are known in the corporate structure as "Master Regional Franchisees". Such a franchisee acquires its rights from Fastway Couriers, pursuant to certain documentation. The Master Regional Franchisee obtains a grant of what is said to be exclusive rights which render that party wholly responsible for a particular regional area. There is the right to break down that area into zones so as to sub-franchise to those who are identified as "Courier Franchisees". Each of these is responsible for providing the actual courier services in the particular zone. In effect, the evidence suggests each Courier Franchisee is the owner and operator of its own business and its income is dependent upon the amount of courier services provided by it in its given zone. -g - At present, there are 16 Master Regional Franchisees Operating throughout the country in regions from North Queensland to Tasmania in the south, and to South Australia in the west. There are currently 256 Courier Franchisees operating in the master regional franchise areas that I have described. In February 1994, Fastway Couriers entered into a Master Regional Franchise Agreement with NCC. By that arrangement, NCC became master regional franchisee for the Canberra region. NCC now has 7 Courier Franchisee territories. Over some months, Mr McGowan received information suggesting dissatisfaction with the performance of the manager of NCC, Mr David Cox. In about November 1994, Mr Cox ceased to be manager of NCC. The consequence of this was that the first applicant decided not to terminate NCC's Master Regional Franchise Deed. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents were courier franchisees who have now terminated their courier franchise arrangements with NCC. On the case of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Welsh were never Courier Franchisees. It is said that they had an arrangement with NCC either as employee or contractor in relation to the performance of certain services in the Canberra area, including courier services. The relationship between NCC and the Welsh's is said not to have been part of the Fastway Couriers National Franchise system. - 9 - The script, exhibit A, contains apparent references to the seventh and eighth respondents as dissatisfied franchisees. It refers in greater detail to the discontent with their position of Mr and Mrs Welsh. I turn first to consider the claim to injunctive relief insofar as it is based on defamation law. The relevant principles are outlined in two well known decisions of Hunt J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Swimsure (Laboratories) Pty Ltd v McDonald (1979) 2 NSWLR 796 and Church of Scientology of California Incorporated v Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd (1980) 1 NSWLR 344. In the latter case, at 349, Hunt J said: "I accept as the settled law that the power to grant interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases must be exercised with great caution, and only in very clear cases. A plaintiff must establish that a subsequent finding by a jury that the matter complained of was not defamatory of him would be set aside as unreasonable; that there is no real ground for supposing that the defendant may succeed upon any defence of justification, privilege or comment, and that he, the plaintiff, is likely to recover more than nominal damages only. In particular, questions of privilege and malice are not normally appropriate to be decided upon an interlocutory application. Nor will an injunction go which will have the effect of restraining the discussion in the press of matters of public interest or concern. This principle has been extended to discussion of such matters in books." -~ 10 - There is, I think, some ground for debate as to the scope of that last passage. But the passage which preceded it is clearly settled law. Having heard all that Mr Neil says for the applicants I am left with the clear impression, even allowing in his favour the scope for pleading relevant imputations out of the materials in evidence that this case is one which is governed by the principles explained by Hunt J with the result that interlocutory injunctive relief is not appropriate. That is said having regard to the added complexity which was not really explored before me of the different consequences which could arise under the defamation laws of different states and territories and the problems that could arise depending upon the particular forum which was selected as the court in which the defamation action was brought. I proceeded on the footing that the action would be tried in this Court sitting in New South Wales. That brings me to the other branch of the case, that concerning s. 52 of the TP Act. The question here principally concerns s. 65A. There is another argument regarding s. 75B which I will consider later in these reasons. Section 65A provides that nothing in s. 52 applies to a "prescribed publication" of matter by a "prescribed information provider". A publication is relevantly "prescribed" if it falls within sub-s. 65A (2). For the purposes of this case, there will be a prescribed publication by way of a television broadcast by - 11 - the Corporation because it is a prescribed information provider within the meaning of the special definition in sub- s. 65A (2). The matter does not rest there because the protection which is thus conferred by sub-s. 65A (1) from what otherwise would be the operation of s. 52, is subject to a qualification. The qualification is spelled out at length in the balance of sub-s. (1). In this case, it is said for the applicants that there is a publication of matter in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services where the goods or services are "relevant goods or services". The phrase "relevant goods or services" is also subject to a special definition in sub-s. (2), as meaning: ",.. in relation to a prescribed information provider ... goods or services of a kind supplied by the prescribed information provider Counsel for the applicants submits that on two grounds the telecasting of the Fastway Couriers segment in "The Investigators" programme would be the publication of matter in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services, being goods or services which are relevant goods or services. First, there would be a service to the franchisees in sorting out, to put it neutrally, their relationships inter se, in particular with the first applicant. Secondly, there - 12 _ would also be a provision of a service to the public in drawing attention to the nature of the services provided under these franchise arrangements, in particular alerting the public to the need for care in entering as franchisees into these complex commercial transactions. Counsel for the Corporation submits that the televising of a programme of this sort is not the supply of goods or services by his client as a prescribed information provider. Rather, it is. merely the provision of information, Information, in his submission, may have an editorial content in the same way that a news report or sports commentary or arts criticism programmes contain editorial content or present particular points of view. There is some discussion of the scope of s. 65A in Sun Earth Homes Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1993) 45 FCR 265. In that case the Corporation was a prescribed information provider and the telecast there in question, which as it happens had also appeared on "The Investigators", was a prescribed publication. It was argued for the applicants, Sun Earth Homes, that the Corporation could not rely upon s. 65A because it had a commercial interest in the content of the information it published. This was said to be by virtue of the promotion of the Corporation's own consumer rights book at the end of the programme. It was also submitted that the programme was more - 13 - than mere reporting of news or comment. The first of those factors, namely, the commercial interest, is not present in this case. Wilcox J held that whilst it might be inferred that the Corporation derived a financial benefit from sales of the book it promoted and also that the programme did more than report news or comments made by third parties, neither of those circumstances constituted a reason for denying the Corporation the protection of the section. I would follow the reasoning that led to that conclusion. I put to one side the question whether a promotional advertisement by the Corporation (and within its own organisation) of its own programme would be in any special position by reason of the application of para. 65A (1) (b). This sub-paragraph takes out of the protection of s. 65 "a publication of an advertisement". It appears from what Wilcox J said in Sun Earth (45 FCR at 280) that his Honour was of the view that the sort of activity I have mentioned would fall within the exclusion in para. (b). However, that is not the question before me today. In my view, s. 65A does apply, and the exception to it does not apply, in this case. Reference also was made, as I have indicated, to s. 75B. That argument drew upon what was said by French J in Advanced - 14 - Hair Studio Pty Ltd v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 1 at 11-13. In that case a former customer of the business, whose affairs were to be the subject of a current affairs programme over Channel 7 Network, had expressed his dissatisfaction in an interview given to the television station for probable inclusion in the programme. His Honour referred to sub-s. 6 (3) of the TP Act and to the expansion of the Act so as to bring within its range conduct involving the use of television broadcasts. On that footing the former customer, Mr Dunwoody, may have been what his Honour described as a principal contravenor. It then would have been a question as to whether the telecaster would aid and abet the contravention by Mr Dunwoody within the meaning of s. 75B of the Act. However, French J, as one would expect, referred to what had been decided by the High Court in Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661. He concluded (18 FCR at 15): "... before TVW could be said to aid and abet Dunwoody's contravention by broadcasting his statement, it would have to be fixed with knowledge of its falsity ... But the falsity is contentious." His Honour went on to say: "There may of course be cases where a television licensee is fixed with knowledge of the falsity of a disputed statement. Clear evidence might be put before it to demonstrate that a statement made to it is untrue." - 15 - In the present case, the script suggests that there will be statements made by the seventh and eighth respondents. Statements will also be made by Mr and Mrs Welsh. But several things must be said about that. The first is that Mr and Mrs Welsh are not respondents. Secondly, in order for s. 75B to operate here the Corporation would have to have been involved, in the relevant sense, in the contravention by those persons. No such involvement, as I have said, is presently alleged on their part. Furthermore, the nine matters in exhibit A of which complaint is now made in the proposed order 3A do not include any statements by Mr and Mrs Welsh or by the seventh and eighth respondents. In any event, despite the inferences which senior counsel for the applicants seeks me to draw at this interlocutory level, the evidence does not sufficiently indicate a prima facie case of knowledge of falsity on the part of the telecaster. Facts might change at the trial. This would be of particular significance, I think, to the second branch of the trade practices argument. Nevertheless, as the matters stand at present, there are at the very least strong considerations favouring the position advanced by the Corporation. The prima facie case against it is correspondingly weakened. It should be understood by the applicants that nothing I have said denies what is put forward as their complaint, ~ 16 - particularly in paras. 24 and 25 of Mr McGowan's affidavit sworn 23 March. He makes the point there that the advertisement or promotion, which was the subject of the interlocutory restraint granted Friday 24 March, was likely to damage the business of Fastway Couriers. He also stresses that he has offered on several occasions to participate in an unedited or live to air interview to be screened as part of the programme. However, I also have to bear in mind at this stage that there are many factual matters in dispute. The respondents have not had (and there is no blame to be attributed to any person for this) the opportunity in the nature of events to put on oath their side of the case. But sufficient has emerged to suggest that there is some contention in various aspects of the case. I bear in mind also that the script material referred to in points (g), (h) and (i) of the proposed order 3A at this stage suggests some slanting in the presentation of the programme. This causes the applicants distress and concern, in particular arising from the repeated use of an excerpt from the confrontation with Mr McGowan on 12 March at Sydney International Airport. In considering the balance of convenience I must, in addition to what has been said, also give weight to what was said by French J in the Advanced Hair Studio case at 16-17, as to the balance of convenience in this sort of case. -~17 - In the result, I have reached the conclusion that interlocutory relief should not be granted in the terms of order 3A as proposed. That will have the effect that the existing order 3 will expire at midnight tonight and will not be replaced by further injunctive relief. Orders 4, 5 and 6 will continue until further order. I certify that this and the preceding sixteen (16) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Gummow. Associate: 4-1. Date: 27 March 1995. Counsel and solicitors Mr M.J. Neil QC and for the applicants: Mr T.D.F. Hughes instructed by Bamford Terrett. Counsel and solicitors Mr M.G. Sexton instructed for the respondents: by ABC Legal & Copyright. Date of hearing: 27 March 1995 Date of judgment: 27 March 1995 tape 9 tape $ megowan walking and cutaways of airport crowd etc tape 3 (0;00 - 04;00) tape 2 (36:47 -) overlay of men tape x tape 4 mix to photo map graphic tape 1 (26:53 - SCHEDULE A FASTWAY COURIERS up IV 'mr megowan, my name is ros thomas, i'm from the investigators programme, we'd like to have a chat to you about your canberra franchiseas' Look, I've just come off a flight..i'm going home' I realise that mr McGowan....' (he walks) V/O: A TRAVEL WEARY BILL McGOWAN POLITELY DECLINES AN INTERVIEW AT SYDNEY AIRPORT... BUT HE WAS MUCH MORE FORTHCOMING WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO JOINED UP WITH A COURIER BUSINESS IN CANBERRA. THE MEN YOU SEE SEATED HERE INCLUDE A FORMER WESTPAC BANK MANAGER AND TwO SMALL BUSINESSMEN WHO SAY THE WORST THING THEY DID WAS TO BUY A COURIER FRANCHISE. up montage of shots of fastway vans with C/ups of signage PTC 'this is fastway's canberra headquarters...it's called national Capital couriers...and this is the place about which we'va had go many complaints...it's only been up and running for about a year now..but in that time..just about every single franchisee who originally signed up with the company has left in disgust' THIS IS BILL McGOWAN... THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FASTWAY COURIERS... A NEW ZEALAND-BASED COMPANY THAT IN 1993 TOOK TO. THE ROAD IN AUSTRALIA. IT NOW HAS MORE THAN A DOZEN INDEPENDENT MASTER FRANCHISES HERE... BUT THE STORY THAT CONCERNS US TONIGHT I8 THE CANBERRA OPERATION RUN BY NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS PROPRIETORY LIMITED... AND TRADING AS FASTWAY COURIERS A.C.T. up nat sot men slam doors and start walking to house gtaphic from brochure tape 10 tape 2 (plus cutaways from brochures tape 10) tape 10 tape x plane landing canberra tape 1 24:00 - THESE MEN OUTLAID UP TO g50000 FOR THEIR BUSINESSES ~COVERING THE COST OF THEIR FRANCHISE AND A COURIER TRUCK. IT WAS A CHANCE TO BE THEIR OWN BOSS BACKED UP BY *"ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COURIER NETWORKS IN AUSTRALIA". grab BOB 10:45 they had pictures of jats... big freight lines with fastway written on them...everything was set out beautifully (butt noddy) 06;10 their speel came across real well..i thought yeh..home and hose here' 06;15 FASTWAYS' GLOSSY BROCHURES PROMISED THEM A GUARANTEED THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK FOR ; THE FIRST TWENTY WEEKS TO GET THEM UP _. AND RUNNING... EVEN AFTER THAT... EACH WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT KIND OF 'MONEY WOULDN'T BE HARD TO MAKE got trucks through frame BUT If WAS... IN FACT... SOME NEEDED TO DRIVE UP TO 1500 K'S A WEEK TO EARN A WAGE THAT ONLY JUST TOPPED THE DOLE. GRAB MARK 06;34 '$180 dollars for 50 hours a week, 06:36 (but noddie) 22729 'and struggling to make house payment — and feed and send three kiddies to school' 22:35 GRAB BOB 13716 'I eventually had 65 customers...ian had 80...even with tham you couldn't make a living' 13;21 AND WHEN THESE MEN SWALLOWED THEIR PRIDE AND CALLED NATIONAL CAPIAL COURIERS FOR HELP... IT WAS "HR FASTWAY® HIMSELF WHO FLEW TO THE RESCUE TO IMPART MORE OF HIS BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY VO. BUT INSTEAD OF HELPFUL GUIDANCE THE COURIERS FELT THAT THEY RECEIVED A STERN LECTURE. grab courier: ? up IV . 03;42 mr mCgowan..do you have anything tape 9 -: tape 3 (17;01 - maybe exhaust starting up tape 2/3 Tape 4 gv's kerry and jan poring over contract tape 4 11:29 = tape 4 Tape 9 "gtill sell this busineas as a running 3. to say?.. I've just got off a flight... I'm tired...goodnight" 03:48 UP NAT SOT kerry and jan welsh walking along beach KERRY AND JAN WELSH WISH IT WAS THAT EASY TO WAVE GOODBYE TO THEIR PROBLEM. up sot THEY BOUGHT NOT ONE BUT TWO FRANCHISES FROM NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS... AND PAID ALL UP WITH A NEW TRUCK AND VAN... A HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. THEY WERE TOLD THEY HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THEIR BUSINESSES...UNTIL THE DAY KERRY SAYS CANBERRA HEAD OFFICE ASKED HIM TO WORK FOR A NEW COMPANY... SET UP _ IN ASSOCIATION WITH NATIONAL CAPITAL . COURIERS. GRAB KERRY 22:56 we didn't have any problem with that until i asked the question 23;00 . (butt noddie) 23:02 at the end of the day..when i've had anough..whether it ba two or four days down the road...1 can concern?...and he said NO WAY* 23;10 "REVERSE 07:04 (so you were basically — going to give up your rights as a franchisee?) 23;17 'that's what they wanted, yes' 23719 TO THE WELSH'S SOLICITOR... THAT WAS A CLEAR BREACH OF THEIR CONTRACT... AND IT'S BEEN A WAR OF WORDS EVER SINCE.THAT DISPUTE WILL HAVE TO BE SOLVED BY THE COURTS. BUT ITS GOT TO THE POINT WHERE NEITHER KERRY NOR NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS WILL DO BUSINESS WITH EACH OTHER. GRAB KERRY : 27;39 we were left not knowing where our money was coming from' 27; 42 GRAB JAN 33;28 it's got us to the point where we've nearly lost averything...and i mean EVERYTHING' 33:34 Iv 03:45 Mr McGowan... do you understand these people want an explanation from slowmo mcgowan at airport or zoom in photo from brochure letter graphic tape 4 and shots contract tape 4 shot mCgowan tape 2 tape 9 you?...Goodnight' 03;48 MR McGOWAN'S EXPLANATION IS THAT THE WELSH'S BESF LIES SOLELY WITH NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS... A COMPANY OWNED AND OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY OF HIM. "the welsh's never signed a franchise agreement with fastway couriers...never receivad an identification card from fastway couriers and were never part of the fastway couriers franchise system" HOWBVER... THE WELSH'S COULD BE FORGIVEN FOR THINKING THEY HAD AN AUTHORISED FASTWAY FRANCHISE. GRAB KERRY 30;29 'the agreement we signed was on 4 fastway letterhead 30;31 AND IF THAT'S THE CASE...THE QUESTION REMAINS...WHY HASN'T BILL MCGOWAN TAKEN ACTION OVER THE UNAUTHORISED USE OF THE FASTWAY NAME. THE WELSH'S ARE STILL SEEKING $34000 IN DAMAGES FROM NATIONAL CAPITAL COURIERS. GRAB BOB ~ 05;04 'every week you went in and you were losing...pretty hard.--.in the end...that's why in the end...i eventually walked out with nothing UP IV 03:49 'they bought franchises with your nama..they've all failed...don't you think that's more than a coincidence? Goodnight' ENDS