Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 47

Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] FCA 47

It is a binding rule that in proceedings which are solely for the recovery of a pecuniary penalty, the court should, absent statutory provision to the contrary, refuse to make any order against the defendant for discovery or production of documents, including by subpoena, as the process would assist in establishing liability to the penalty. This rule rests on the privilege against exposure to a penalty, which extends to corporations.

Parties
Plaintiff: Trade Practices Commission; First Defendant: T.N.T. Management Pty. Limited; Second Defendant: Brambles Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Mayne Nickless Limited; Fourth Defendant: Youngs Transport Pty. Limited; Fifth Defendant: Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty. Limited; Sixth Defendant: Express Freight Pty. Limited; Seventh Defendant: Associated Steamships Pty. Limited; Eighth Defendant: Ipec Holdings Limited; Ninth Defendant: Interstate Parcel Express Co. Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 1984
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Recovery of a Penalty / Interlocutory Order on Setting Aside Subpoenas
Outcome
Applications by the defendants granted
Legal Topics
Subpoena Duces Tecum, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Discovery in Penalty Proceedings
Practice and Procedure Evidence Subpoena Duces Tecum Privilege Against Self Incrimination Discovery in Penalty Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Plaintiff

T.N.T. Management Pty. Limited

First Defendant

Brambles Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Mayne Nickless Limited

Third Defendant

Youngs Transport Pty. Limited

Fourth Defendant

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty. Limited

Fifth Defendant

Express Freight Pty. Limited

Sixth Defendant

Associated Steamships Pty. Limited

Seventh Defendant

Ipec Holdings Limited

Eighth Defendant

Interstate Parcel Express Co. Pty. Limited

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proceedings for Recovery of a Penalty / Interlocutory Order on Setting Aside Subpoenas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subpoena duces tecum to a corporation in an action to recover a penalty should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether privilege against self-incrimination is available to corporations in penalty proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

It is a binding rule that in proceedings which are solely for the recovery of a pecuniary penalty, the court should, absent statutory provision to the contrary, refuse to make any order against the defendant for discovery or production of documents, including by subpoena, as the process would assist in establishing liability to the penalty. This rule rests on the privilege against exposure to a penalty, which extends to corporations.

Court Disposition

Applications by the defendants granted

Orders

  • Each subpoena be set aside.
  • The plaintiff pay the costs of each defendant in these applications.