Re Edwina Alice Barton v Croner Trading Pty Limited [1985] FCA 34 (19 February 1985)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Re: EDWINA ALICE BARTON
And: CRONER TRADING PTY. LIMITED
Nos. G199 to G216 of 1983
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - consumer protection - sale of soft toys bearing false representations as to their history, standard and sponsorship - penalty under s.79 Trade Practices Act, 1974 - relevant considerations in assessing penalty.

Trade Practices Act, 1974 ss.53 (a) and (c), 79.

HEARING

SYDNEY
19:2:1985

ORDER

1. The defendant is convicted of committing contraventions of the provisions of s.53 (a) and (c) respectively of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 being the charges referred to in proceedings Nos. G199 to G216 of 1983 inclusive.

2. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G199 of 1983.

3. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G200 of 1983.

4. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G201 of 1983.

5. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G202 of 1983.

6. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G 203 of 1983.

7. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G204 of 1983.

8. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G205 of 1983.

9. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G206 of 1983.

10. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G207 of 1983.

11. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G208 of 1983.

12. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G209 of 1983.

13. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G210 of 1983.

14. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G211 of 1983.

15. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G212 of 1983.

16. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G213 of 1983.

17. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G214 of 1983.

18. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G215 of 1983.

19. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G216 of 1983.

20. Each of the said fines is to be paid to the District Registrar of this Court within 21 days of this day.

21. The defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutrix with respect to each of the said proceedings.

DECISION

The prosecutrix, an officer of the Trade Practices Commission, has charged the defendant with 18 contraventions of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 ("the Act"). The contraventions, which are punishable by s.79 of the Act, are said to offend s.53(a) and (c) of the Act. Those paragraphs provide as follows:

"53. A corporation shall not, in trade or

commerce, in connexion with the supply or
possible supply of goods or services or in
connexion with the promotion by any means
of the supply or use of goods or
services--

(a) falsely represent that goods are of
a particular standard, quality,
grade, composition, style or model
or have had a particular history or
particular previous use;

...

(c) represent that goods or services
have sponsorship, approval,
performance characteristics,
accessories, uses or benefits they
do not have;

..."

2. The contraventions of the Act are said to arise out of false representations made by the defendant in connection with the supply or possible supply of certain toy koalas and toy kangaroos: the prosecutrix alleges that a number of false representations were made by the defendant as to the history, sponsorship and standard of the toy products.

3. At an early stage of the proceedings, the defendant indicated that it wished to submit that the informations, or at any rate, some of them, were statute-barred by reason of the provisions of s.21 of the Crimes Act, 1914. Other defences raising points of law were foreshadowed. In due course, the parties agreed, in the main, upon the facts necessary to refer to a Full Court by a special case a number of questions of law, including the defendant's limitation defence. Since the parties were unable to agree on one aspect of the facts, a trial of that issue was held and I made certain findings in that connection in reasons for judgment dated 7 June 1984.

4. By special case dated 22 June 1984, three questions of law were stated for the opinion of the Full Court. On 19 July 1984, for the reasons it then gave, the Full Court (Bowen, C.J., Beaumont and Wilcox, JJ.) answered each of the questions adversely to the defendant. There being no other defences on the issue of the liability of the defendant to be convicted, the Full Court remitted the matter for the entry of formal convictions and for consideration of penalties. Since the reasons for judgment delivered by the Full Court describe fully the background to the prosecution and the details of the charges laid, I will not repeat that material.

5. The history of the matter commences in March 1982 when a representative of Woolworths Limited approached Mr. Gil Lockhart, the defendant's national sales manager and informed him that Woolworths was doing an "Australian made promotion" and was looking for toys to be included in the sale. In response to the question whether the defendant held any stock that was "Australian made", Mr. Lockhart indicated that the defendant had a "Matilda" kangaroo and a koala. Woolworths then ordered a total of 5,412 kangaroos and 5,220 koalas at a wholesale price of $3.32 each. With sales tax at the rate of 17 1/2% added, the total value of the order was $41,475.43. In April or May 1982, the defendant sent samples of the toys to Woolworths. The kangaroo and the koala so forwarded were photographed by an advertising agent retained by Woolworths for the purpose of an advertising campaign for a sale fixed to commence on 12 July 1982 in 110 Woolworths stores throughout Australia.

6. Towards the middle of 1982, brochures were placed in the letterboxes of residents in the areas surrounding Woolworths' stores. The brochures advertised Woolworths' "Aussie Made Sale" against the background of the national flag. In the brochure, Woolworths, which described itself as "an all Australian company run by Australians for Australians", offered a number of articles for sale. Included in the brochure was a photograph of a number of toys. Under the general heading "Woolworths Aussie Made Sale", the "Matilda kangaroo or koala" were included in the photograph and were advertised at $5.99 each. The defendant's products were referred to in these terms:

"CRONER TOYS
TOYS CHILDREN LOVE
DOWN UNDER FUN FRIENDS ..."

7. In the first instance, the defendant proposed to fulfill the order from Woolworths by importing partly fabricated toys, being skin forms, from Samho Trading Co. of Seoul, Korea ("Samho"). A purchase order on Samho bearing date 6 April 1982 ordering the skins was prepared. As ordered, the skins were said to be "semi-stuffed" so that, if this order had been met, it would have been necessary to carry out a factory operation in Australia to complete the stuffing and stitching of the goods before delivery to Woolworths. The purchase order on Samho specified shipment in full before 2 May 1982. Since shipment was by sea, it would take about one month before the semi-stuffed skins would arrive in Australia and a further month would be required to complete the factory operations here.

8. The unfortunate course of events which then ensued was sought to be explained by the defendant's managing director, Mr. John V. Hunter, in his affidavit sworn 19 October 1984:

"17. However, the purchase order was not
sent off at a proper time in order to meet
Woolworths' requirements. As the purchase
order was dated 6 April 1982, it was sent
off so late it was unlikely that
Woolworths' date could be met. At a later
stage it emerged that Samho could not meet
the shipping date 2 May 1982 as specified.

18. After several telexes passed between
Croner Trading and Samho in the course of
endeavours to accelerate delivery by
Samho, an order was given by telex to
Samho altering the requirement to fully
stuffed koalas and kangaroos. The fully
stuffed kangaroos were imported by sea.
Toy koalas stock which had not been
obtained in connection with this
particular order but had been imported
from Samho in Korea was used to meet
Woolworths order. In some cases labels
indicating 'Made in Korea' were removed or
partly removed from the toys; I have not
been able to establish whether this was
done in all cases. With respect to the
kangaroos, these were filled with
medallions and ribbons in the factory of
Hosell Pty Limited in Melbourne. The
kangaroos when imported did not bear
labels referring to their being made in
Korea."

9. It is not suggested that Woolworths were aware of the defendant's actions until the Trade Practices Commission began its investigation of the matter.

10. Mr. Tony Bontorno, the defendant's shipping manager, endeavoured to explain the deception which occurred in his affidavit sworn 19 October 1984:

"5. In the course of April 1982 I realized
that it was likely that there would be a
failure to meet the delivery times which
would be specified in Woolworths' expected
order, and I took steps to alter the
orders which had been given to Samho to
orders for fully stuffed koalas and
kangaroos. I made arrangements for these
to be equipped with labels after arrival
in Melbourne. Before making these
arrangements I discussed what could be
done to meet Woolworths' requirements with
the warehouse manager, Mr Ron Anderson,
but I did not discuss the difficulty or
what I proposed to have done with Mr
Hunter the Managing Director, or with any
director of the Company, or any other
officer of the Company with authority over
myself.

6. I acknowledge that it was wrong to
take the course I did and I wish to
express to this Honourable Court my regret
for having done so. I did so because I
feared that if Woolworths' delivery dates
were not met, Woolworths might impose
penalties on Croner Trading such as
withholding future orders, or insisting on
payment of claims based on losses from
disrupting its marketing programme or
Woolworths might refuse to take delivery
altogether leaving Croner Trading with the
difficulty of disposing of the goods."

11. Mr. James R. Anderson, the defendant's warehouse manager, in his affidavit sworn 24 October 1984, offered the Court the following brief explanation:

"I can recollect placing labels on some
koalas and kangaroos in approximately
April or May of 1982. I only have a vague
recollection of this and cannot say who
instructed me to do this work. I cannot
remember the number involved. My
recollection is that my instructions did
not come from Mr. Hunter."

12. In consequence of the defendant's actions, the kangaroo and the koala were, for the reasons given in answering the special case, projected by the defendant into the course of trade accompanied by a number of false representations as to their history, standard and sponsorship. Although the goods were made in the Republic of Korea and imported, fully made, into this country and although there was not in force at any material time any "Inflammability Act" or any State or Commonwealth legislation or regulation dealing with the flammability of the toys, to each koala supplied there was affixed the following:

(a) A swing tag reading "made in Australia";
(b) A swing tag reading "Advance Australia" and bearing a representation of the flag of the Commonwealth, being an emblem of Advance Australia;
(c) A swing tag reading "this item exceeds all Australian Safety Regulations including the Inflammability Act"; and
(d) A T-shirt upon which appeared the legend "XII Commonwealth Games Brisbane 1982".

13. Similarly, to each kangaroo supplied there was affixed the following:

(a) A swing tag reading "made in Australia";
(b) A swing tag reading "Advance Australia" and bearing a representation of the flag of the Commonwealth, being an emblem of Advance Australia; (c) A swing tag reading "this item exceeds all Australian Safety Regulations including the Inflammability Act"; and
(d) Coloured ribbon to which was attached a XII Commonwealth Games medal.

14. The swing tag was as follows (both sides are reproduced):

(Illustrations omitted)

15. In a series of interviews with officers of the Trade Practices Commission conducted before the institution of these proceedings, representatives of the defendant gave a false and misleading impression of the events being investigated. When interviewed on 26 October 1982, Mr. James C. Lockhart, the manager of the defendant's division known as "Playmate Toys (N.S.W.)", alleged that in the case of the koala, the defendant purchased the skin only from Korea. He told officers of the Commission that:

"The skin was made in Korea and imported by
Croner. We filled the bear here. The
eyes etc. were on the skin when we
imported it. The filling is of crushed
nuts and flock. We use macadamia nuts
now, we used to buy apricot shells; the
flock we buy from whoever has it. We also
buy material trimmings and wool
trimmings."

16. Mr. Lockhart proffered a similar explanation in the case of the kangaroo. He was also asked about the removal of the labels stating "Made in Korea" and their substitution with the Playmate "Made in Australia" swing tag. He said that Mr. Hunter gave him an instruction, orally, to cut off the sewn-in labels and to attach the Playmate "made in Australia" swing tag.

17. A further interview with representatives of the defendant was conducted by officers of the Commission on l6 March 1983. Messrs. Hunter and Bontorno were present. On that occasion, Mr. Hunter was referred to the swing tag "Proudly Made in Australia by Playmate Toys (N.S.W.)". In response to a request to explain this claim, Mr. Hunter said:

"The incorrect label was used, the stock
label was used, it was rush job, very
rushed. It was done without proper care."

18. When asked about the materials used, Mr. Hunter explained:

"It is all new material, but certainly non
Australian made material. The stuffing is
Australian. It's a stock label. We think
there is ambiguity in Trade Practices
regarding made in Australia labelled
(sic)."

19. Mr. Hunter was also questioned about the "Australian Safety Regulations" and "The Inflammability Act". He said:

"There is a regulation regarding flash
flame tests, pull tests on the eye. There
is Australian Standard which our
manufacturers are aware of as well as
everyone in the industry."

20. When asked about the "Inflammability Act, Mr. Hunter said:

"It is an exposure to flash flame."

21. When asked whether it was a Federal or State Act, Mr. Hunter said:

"I'm not qualified to answer that, there is
a regulation concerning flammability."

22. Mr. Hunter was also questioned about the testing of the toys to the various Regulations and the Act referred to on the swing tag. His response was:

"Jim Lockhart is qualified to answer that.
I believe yes. I'm sure these would pass
the Standards."

23. The removal of the labels was further explored by the interviewer:

"62.
I said: 'I understand that these sewn-in
labels of the KOALA were removed by MR JIM
LOCKHART in Sydney on the instructions of
MR JOHN HUNTER, MANAGING DIRECTOR of
CRONER TRADING PTY LTD. Is that correct?'

He said: That's a long time ago. The
fact of the matter is, we didn't want two
labels appearing on the products.

63.
I said: 'Why was the sewn-in label,
indicating "MADE IN KOREA" removed?'

He said: I'll use the answer to 62 and
transfer it down here, I think that is the
answer, I certainly am not aware of it.
I don't live in Sydney.

...

78.
I said: 'Is it the common practice of
CRONER TRADING PTY LTD to remove the
woven-fabric, sewn-in labels of imported
unfilled toys when they are to be filled
in Australia?'

He said: I'm not sure."

(Mr. Hunter was shown Mr. Lockhart's
record of interview.)

80.
I said: 'In this interview the margin
indicates the words "he said". This of
course is the answer MR LOCKHART gave to
the questions asked at that interview. I
would appreciate your advice that what MR
LOCKHART said in this record of interview
is true and correct as far as CRONER
TRADING PTY LTD is concerned. Is there
anything in there with which you
disagree?'

He said: Some things come to mind, for
instance, I didn't instruct him to remove
the tags, nothing to do with the
shipping."

24. A second interview with Mr. Lockhart was conducted by the Commission on 17 March 1983. The purpose of this interview was to explore the inconsistencies between the accounts of Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Hunter of certain relevant events, in particular, the relabelling of the koalas and kangaroos. On that point, the record of interview proceeds as follows:

"A5A: (Mr. Lockhart)

There was a discussion between myself and
Mr Hunter, and I thought that more than
50% was done here value-wise and I made
the decision to do that.

Q6: (Ms. Barton)

When we spoke previously you said the
decision was not yours. The two of you
discussed it on the phone, you discussed
the Australian content?

A6: (Mr. Lockhart)

Probably I would have said 'would it be
alright to do that' and he as the boss
said, 'yes go ahead.'

Q7: (Ms. Barton)

You're quite certain you did discuss it
was him?

A7: (Mr. Lockhart)

Yes."

25. Towards the end of the interview, the interviewer explained that the inconsistency which remained was in respect of the identification of the person who made the decision to relabel the koalas and kangaroos. Mr. Lockhart was given a copy of the record of the interview of 26 October 1982 and was asked to indicate any amendments to that record which he thought necessary. Mr. Lockhart did not alter his account of the relabelling.

26. For the purpose of exploring the inconsistencies which had been thrown up by the various versions of what had happened, a second interview with Mr. Hunter was conducted by the Commission on 14 June 1983. Specifically, an officer of the Commission sought at this interview clarification by Mr. Hunter of his answers to questions numbers 62 and 63 of the interview of 16 March 1983 (see above) as follows:

"9. I said:

'Mr Hunter, when the question numbered 62
was put to you we were discussing the
circumstances surrounding the removal of
the sewn-in labels which stated that the
toys were of Korean origin. So now I will
ask you that question again, and ask you
to clarify the answer you gave at the
interview on 16 March 1983, and I quote:

"I understand that these sewn-in labels of
the Koala were removed by Mr Jim Lockhart
in Sydney on the instructions of Mr John
Hunter, Managing Director of Croner
Trading Pty. Ltd. Is that correct?" end
quote.' (I gave Mr. Hunter a photocopy of
a typed version.)

He said:

'I have no recollection of instructing Mr.
Lockhart to remove the labels.'

l0. I said:

'Thanks, Mr. Hunter. Now I will repeat
the question numbered (63) sixty three at
the interview mentioned earlier.

"Why was the sewn-in label, indicating
'Made in Korea' removed?".'

He said:

'Well, I don't know why. Just would say
it would be unattractive. Don't know why.
Believe it could make the toy
unattractive. That's good enough.'"

27. The oral evidence of Messrs. Hunter, Bontorno and Anderson given on the hearing sought to confirm the account of the relabelling decision contained in their affidavits, that is to say, that the immediate decision to remove the labels "Made in Korea" and replace them with the Playmate "made in Australia" swing tag was taken by Mr. Anderson. For his part, Mr. Hunter maintained in his oral evidence that at the time of the interview of himself and Mr. Bontorno by the Commission, viz. 16 March 1983, he was not aware that the order to Samho in Korea had been changed from "semi-stuffed" toys to finished toys. Consequently, in his cross-examination, he attempted to justify his condoning of the use of the "standard" Playmate "made in Australia" label by asserting that he believed that the toys would be finished in Australia:

"You knew the labels on the toys were going
to be to the effect that they were made in
Australia?---If we were stuffing and
finishing and sewing them, we would have
used the standard label, the Croner
Trading Sydney label.

Proudly mde in Australia by Playmate
Toys?---Yes."

28. Mr. Bontorno was also cross-examined as to his understanding:

"What was your understanding of the labels
with which these toys were to be
equipped?---The wording, you mean?

Yes?---I think that we would have had to
have put made in Australia, finish the
product in Australia and made in
Australia.

That was in respect of toys which you then
knew were going to be wholly manufactured
in Korea?---The final process of
manufacture was still done in Australia.
We also imported a medallion that we put
on.

So, you are talking about fitting
a medallion on to the finished toy, are
you?---Yes.

In your opinion that would not qualify
these toys for the description, made in
Australia, would it?---Not as it turned
out, no.

Even before anything was raised by the
Trade Practices Commission, you could not
have held the opinion these toys were made
in Australia, could you?---I inquired and
I could not find out from anyone what
qualified an item being made in Australia,
what part of the process had to be done in
Australia.

But you really could not have thought, by
putting a medal on a toy imported from
Korea, that would transform it into a
product made in Australia, could
you?---Not really."

29. While Mr. Bontorno acknowledged in his affidavit that he made arrangements for the toys to be equipped with the "standard" Playmate swing tag on their arrival, in his oral evidence he denied that he also made the arrangements to have the "Made in Korea" labels removed. He even denied any knowledge at the relevant time of that being done.

30. Mr. Anderson, the warehouse manager, was prepared, in his oral evidence, to accept responsibility for the immediate decision to remove the "Made in Korea" labels. He said that the instruction to replace the "Made in Korea" labels had accompanied the toys as received from the defendant. He claimed that he had thought nothing of this instruction:

"The sewn in label that you were instructed
to replace on these toys had words to the
effect, 'Made in Korea' on it; is that
right?---Yes, I would say that would be
correct.

The Playmate label which you were to put
on the toys had words to the effect of,
'Made in Australia' on it?---It could have
had, yes.

Did it not strike you as unusual that you
were being asked to take off a label
saying 'Made in Korea' and replace it with
one saying, 'Made in Australia'?---I never
thought anything of it.

Was this something that had happened
before?---No. It was just on the order,
so we did according to the order.

Was the receipt of this order from Croner
Trading the first information you had
about what was to be done?---Yes, as far
as I can remember, yes."

31. Mr. Lockhart did not give evidence.

32. It is obvious that the defendant's lack of candour in its dealings with the Trade Practices Commission reflects poorly upon it. Further, whatever actual knowledge Mr. Hunter had of the contraventions at the time they occurred, it is clear that those concerned to make the management decisions in question on behalf of the defendant must have known that their conduct was calculated to mislead and deceive the Australian public. Although the prosecutrix called evidence from only one member of the public to say that she was in fact misled, it is reasonable to assume that her reaction was fairly typical: one would naturally expect Australian consumers to be influenced to purchase a product by representations that the product was made in Australia and that it satisfied local safety tests for flammability.

33. Two further matters should be mentioned, both adverse to the defendant. Although the judgment of the Full Court was given on 19 July 1984, it was not until 30 September 1984, after further prompting by the Trade Practices Commission, that the defendant ceased the supply of its products in the offending form. It is hardly necessary to say that this step, belated as it was, should have been taken much earlier. Also, the defendant has asked the Court to take into account on penalty a number of other contraventions described by an agreed statement of facts as follows:

"3. Amongst other toys distributed by
Croner are the following soft plush toys:

'Willie Koala'
'Willie Koala, Weight Lifter'
'Big Red The Boxing Kangaroo'
'Puggle'
'Kangaroo with Joey'
'Footy Mascot'.

4. The toys Willie Koala, Willie Koala
Weight Lifter, Big Red The Boxing
Kangaroo, Puggle, and Kangaroo with Joey
bear a label which states:

'This item meets or exceeds all Australian
Safety Regulations including Flammability
Act'.

The 'Footy Mascot' toy bears a label
stating either:

'This item meets or exceeds all Australian
Safety Regulations including Flammability
Act'

or

'This item exceeds all Australian Safety
Regulations including the Inflammability
Act'.

5. On 23 July 1984 the prosecutor herein
observed on display in a Coles store a
number of Willie Koala toys bearing the
label referred to in paragraph 4. The
prosecutor purchased one such toy.

6. On 20 August 1984 the prosecutor
herein observed on display in a Coles
store a number of Big Red the Boxing
Kangaroo toys, bearing the label referred
to in Paragraph 4 above. The prosecutor
purchased one such toy."

34. Against these considerations, the defendant asks that the Court take into account the circumstances, first, that notwithstanding its hope to make a profit, it suffered a small loss on the deal with Woolworths; and, secondly, that it is a company of reasonably limited resources. I propose to take both matters into consideration in mitigation of the defendant's conduct.

35. It is not possible to regard the contraventions charged otherwise than as serious breaches of the law committed under circumstances which cast no credit upon the defendant. Further, the defendant's attempt to cover up what had happened and its failure to act appropriately when the Trade Practices Commission intervened are additional reasons for imposing a substantial penalty.

36. I propose to impose a total fine of $31,500.00 as appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the whole of the defendant's conduct. I propose to apportion the total fine between the 18 charges by fixing a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of each contravention.

37. I make the following orders:

1. The defendant is convicted of committing contraventions of the provisions of s.53 (a) and (c) respectively of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 being the charges referred to in proceedings Nos. G199 to G216 of 1983 inclusive.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G199 of 1983.
3. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G200 of 1983.
4. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G201 of 1983.
5. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G202 of 1983.
6. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G 203 of 1983.
7. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G204 of 1983.
8. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G205 of 1983.
9. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G206 of 1983.
10. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G207 of 1983.
11. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G208 of 1983.
12. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G209 of 1983.
13. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G210 of 1983.
14. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G211 of 1983.
15. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G212 of 1983.
16. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G213 of 1983.
17. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G214 of 1983.
18. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G215 of 1983.
19. The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $1,750.00 in respect of the contravention referred to in No. G216 of 1983.
20. Each of the said fines is to be paid to the District Registrar of this Court within 21 days of this day.
21. The defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutrix with respect to each of the said proceedings.