|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Federal Court of Australia |
Last Updated: 5 June 2008
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 4) [2008] FCA 549
TRADE PRACTICES - price fixing
– consent orders – pecuniary penalties – deterrent factors
– no prior contraventions –
lack of awareness of law – no
implementation – no assets – deregistered company re-registered for
proceedings –
natural person no assets.
Australian Competition & Consumer
Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 5
cited
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos
International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 20 cited
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION
AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v KOKOS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 009 404 611), CHUL
WOO KIM, IAE EDU NET PERTH PTY
LTD (ACN 109 963 304), YOUNG GIL PAE, SANG-HONG
JUNG T/A NANURI EDUCATION CENTRE (BN) 088 22 876, REBEKAH CABALT, STUDY OVERSEAS
NOW PTY LTD (ACN 106 835 310) and SEOW BING YEO
WAD 312 OF
2006
FRENCH J
23 APRIL 2008
REVISED:
29 MAY 2008
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The orders made on 23 April 2008 be
replaced by the following orders:
A. Kokos International Pty Ltd (ACN 009 404 611)
1. It is hereby declared that the First Respondent (Kokos) by making an oral agreement with the Third Respondent (IAE), the Fifth Respondent (Nanuri) and Jobbok International Pty Ltd (Jobbok) in early to mid 2004 (Oral Agreement), to the effect that:
(a) the parties would, in the supply of Education Consulting Services (as defined in the Amended Statement of Claim) refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee (as defined in the Amended Statement of Claim);
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision that:
(b) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act); and accordingly
(c) had the purpose or effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
2. It is hereby declared that Kokos, by making a written agreement with IAE, Nanuri, the Seventh Respondent (Study Overseas Now) and Jobbok in mid 2004 (Written Agreement), to the effect that:
(a) the Education Consultants (as defined in the Amended Statement of Claim) would refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;(b) the Education Consultants would monitor each other’s conduct in relation to the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
(c) the Education Consultants would report any Discounted Tuition Fee to the so-called "Council of Korean Agency", which would comprise a representative of each of the Education Consultants; and
(d) any Education Consultant that engaged in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee would be banned from enrolling students in the relevant School (as defined in the Amended Statement of Claim) for a period of three months;
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision or provisions that:
(e) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other, within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Act; and accordingly
(f) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
3. It is hereby declared that Kokos, by engaging in the following conduct:
(a) causing a copy of the Written Agreement to be sent to the following Schools on a date or dates unknown to the Applicant but within approximately one week after signing the Written Agreement:
(i) St Mark’s International College;
(ii) Kingston College;
(iii) Alexander Education Group;
(iv) Edith Cowan University; and
(v) Eurocentre Language School;
(b) refraining from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee for various periods totalling approximately four weeks on dates unknown to the Applicant but in approximately the last six months of 2004 and/or the first six months of 2005; and
(c) on or about 18 February 2005, sending to Jobbok a table containing information in relation to the terms and conditions, including incentives and benefits agreed between Kokos and a number of Schools for the purpose of assisting Jobbok to determine whether Kokos was adhering to the provisions of the Oral Agreement and/or the Written Agreement;
gave effect to a provision or provisions of the Oral Agreement and/or Written Agreement in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.4. It is hereby declared that Kokos, by sending an email to Mr Joseph Woo on or about 24 September 2004 in which Kokos:
(a) informed Joseph Woo that the Education Consultants in Perth had formed the so-called "Council of Perth Overseas Study Agencies";(b) informed Joseph Woo that members of the Education Consultants’ "Council" restrict providing discounts to students apart from special offers provided to Education Consultants by Schools; and
(c) urged Joseph Woo to join the Education Consultants’ "Council" and comply with the rules;
within the meaning of ss 76(1)(b) and 80(1)(b) of the Act, attempted to make an arrangement or arrive at an understanding with Joseph Woo that contained a provision or provisions which, by virtue of s 45A(1) of the Act would have constituted a contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
B. IAE Edu Net Perth Pty Ltd
5. It is hereby declared that IAE, by making the Oral Agreement with Kokos, Nanuri and Jobbok in early to mid 2004 to the effect that:
(a) the parties would, in the supply of Education Consulting Services, refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision that:
(b) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Act; and accordingly
(c) had the purpose or effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
6. It is hereby declared that IAE, by making the Written Agreement with Kokos, Nanuri, Study Overseas Now and Jobbok in mid 2004 to the effect that:
(a) the Education Consultants would refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;(b) the Education Consultants would monitor each other’s conduct in relation to the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
(c) the Education Consultants would report any Discounted Tuition Fee to the so-called "Council of Korean Agency", which would comprise a representative of each of the Education Consultants; and
(d) any Education Consultant that engaged in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee would be banned from enrolling students in the relevant School for a period of three months,
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision or provisions that:
(e) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Act and accordingly
(f) had the purpose or effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
7. It is hereby declared that IAE, by engaging in the following conduct:
(a) refraining from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee from approximately July 2004 to November 2004;
(b) on or about 18 February 2005, sending to Jobbok a table containing information in relation to the terms and conditions, including incentives and benefits agreed between IAE and a number of Schools for the purpose of assisting Jobbok to determine whether IAE was adhering to the provisions of the Oral Agreement, and/or the Written Agreement,
gave effect to a provision or provisions of the Oral Agreement and/or Written Agreement in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
C. Sang-Hong Jung t/a Nanuri Education Centre
8. It is hereby declared that Nanuri, by making the Oral Agreement with Kokos, IAE and Jobbok in early to mid 2004 to the effect that:
(a) the parties would, in the supply of Education Consulting Services, refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision that:
(b) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Competition Code of Western Australia (the Code); and accordingly
(c) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Code.
9. It is hereby declared that Nanuri, by making the Written Agreement with Kokos, IAE, Study Overseas Now and Jobbok in mid 2004 to the effect that:
(a) the Education Consultants would refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;(b) the Education Consultants would monitor each other’s conduct in relation to the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
(c) the Education Consultants would report any Discounted Tuition Fee to the so-called "Council of Korean Agency", which would comprise a representative of each of the Education Consultants; and
(d) any Education Consultant that engaged in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee would be banned from enrolling students in the relevant School for a period of three months;
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision or provisions that:
(e) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Code; and accordingly
(f) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Code.
10. It is hereby declared that Nanuri, by refraining from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee for various periods totalling approximately four weeks on dates unknown to the Applicant but in approximately the last six months of 2004 and/or the first six months of 2005 gave effect to a provision or provisions of the Oral Agreement and/or Written Agreement in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Code.
D. Study Overseas Now Pty Ltd
11. It is hereby declared that Study Overseas Now, by making the Written Agreement with Kokos, IAE, Nanuri and Jobbok in mid 2004 to the effect that:
(a) the Education Consultants would refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;(b) the Education Consultants would monitor each other’s conduct in relation to the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee;
(c) the Education Consultants would report any Discounted Tuition Fee to the so-called "Council of Korean Agency", which would comprise a representative of each of the Education Consultants; and
(d) any Education Consultant that engaged in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a Discounted Tuition Fee would be banned from enrolling students in the relevant School for a period of three months,
made a contract or arrangement, or arrived at an understanding, which contained a provision or provisions that:
(e) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to
Education Consulting Services supplied by the parties in competition with each other within the meaning of s 45A(1) of the Act; and accordingly
(f) had the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; andthereby engaged in conduct in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.
E. Chul Woo Kim
12. It is hereby declared that the Second Respondent (Chad Kim) by engaging, on behalf of Kokos, in the conduct that constituted each of the contraventions of the Act by Kokos referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contraventions by Kokos of ss 45(2)(a)(ii), and 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act within the meaning of ss 76(1)(e) and 80(1)(e) of the Act.
F. Young Gil Pae
13. It is hereby declared that the Fourth Respondent (Ace Pae) by engaging, on behalf of IAE, in the conduct that constituted each of the contraventions of the Act by IAE referred to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above, was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contraventions by IAE of ss 45(2)(a)(ii) and 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Act within the meaning of ss 76(1)(e) and 80(1)(e) of the Act.
G. Rebekah Cabalt
14. It is hereby declared that the Sixth Respondent (Rebekah Cabalt) by engaging, on behalf of Nanuri, in the conduct that constituted each of the contraventions of the Code by Nanuri referred to in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 above, was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contraventions by Nanuri of ss 45(2)(a)(ii) and 45(2)(b)(ii) of the Code within the meaning of ss 76(1)(e) and 80(1)(e) of the Code.
H. Seow Bing Yeo
15. It is hereby declared that the Eighth Respondent (Bernard Yeo) by engaging, on behalf of Study Overseas Now, in the conduct that constituted the contravention of the Act by Study Overseas Now referred to in paragraph 11 above, was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by Study Overseas Now of s 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Act within the meaning of ss 76(1)(e) and 80(1)(e) of the Act.
InjunctionsBernard Yeo
16. Bernard Yeo be restrained for a period of three years from the date of this order, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever and by any means whatsoever from being in any way directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, any contract, arrangement or understanding with Kokos, IAE, Nanuri, Jobbok or any supplier of Education Consulting Services in Western Australia which contains a provision that:
(a) has the purpose or the effect or was likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to Education Consulting Services supplied by any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding in competition with each other; or(b) has the purpose or a substantial purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting the supply of Education Consulting Services to Korean students or prospective students by any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding who are competitive with each other.
Pecuniary Penalties
Bernard Yeo
17. A pecuniary penalty of $500 is imposed on the Eighth Respondent in relation to his involvement in the contravention of the Act by Study Overseas Now set out in paragraph 11 above.18. The Seventh and Eighth Respondents are to pay the applicant’s costs, to be taxed, if not agreed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with
in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
BETWEEN:
|
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER
COMMISSION
Applicant |
|
AND:
|
KOKOS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (ACN 009 404 611)
First Respondent CHUL WOO KIM Second Respondent IAE EDU NET PERTH PTY LTD (ACN 109 963 304) Third Respondent YOUNG GIL PAE Fourth Respondent SANG-HONG JUNG T/A NANURI EDUCATION CENTRE (BN) 088 22 876 Fifth Respondent REBEKAH CABALT Sixth Respondent STUDY OVERSEAS NOW PTY LTD (ACN 106 835 310) Seventh Respondent SEOW BING YEO Eighth Respondent |
|
JUDGE:
|
FRENCH J
|
|
DATE:
REVISED: |
23 APRIL 2008
29 MAY 2008 |
|
PLACE:
|
PERTH
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON ORDERS
AGAINST SEVENTH
AND EIGHTH RESPONDENTS
1 The following is a revised version of the reasons I delivered on 23 April 2008. These reasons support the replacement of the orders then made with the orders now made. The revision is necessary to correct an error as to the declaratory relief which was the subject of consent by all respondents and to the contraventions admitted by the Eighth Respondent. There is a consequential change to the pecuniary penalty imposed on the Eighth Respondent. None of the previous orders have yet been entered.
2 These proceedings were brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) against three companies, a business and their officers who were engaged in the provision of education consulting services in Perth to students of Korean origin. The ACCC alleged that the companies and the business, through their officers, entered into an agreement, at first oral and then written, not to offer discounted tuition fees to students for whom they acted as brokers in arranging their enrolment at schools, colleges and universities.
3 The facts of the case have been set out in an earlier judgment relating to the first four respondents given on 10 January 2008: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos (No 2) [2008] FCA 5. Injunctive orders were made by consent and penalties imposed after argument in respect of those respondents. Declarations offered by consent were stood over pending the finalisation of the proceedings against all respondents. In a further judgment, delivered on 17 January 2008, I made injunctive orders against the fifth and sixth respondents and again imposed penalties. Declaration orders proposed by consent were stood over until the finalisation of the proceedings as a whole: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 20. The matter has come back before the Court for disposition as against the seventh and eighth respondents. Statements of agreed facts have been filed.
4 The seventh respondent, Study Overseas Now Pty Ltd (Study Overseas Now) was at all material times a trading corporation carrying on business in Western Australia as, among other things, a supplier of education consulting services to students and prospective students of Korean origin intending to study at secondary and tertiary institutions (Schools). The services consisted of:
(a) providing information about available courses of study in Perth, including information regarding fees;
(b) providing advice as to which of the available courses may be suitable for a prospective student’s requirements;
(c) providing informal oral translation of promotional materials and course information published in English by the Schools;
(d) facilitating application to, and enrolment in, courses of study at Schools; and
(e) facilitating payment of fees by students or prospective students to Schools.
5 The company does not have exact figures for the annual turnover and profit for the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 financial years. Mr Yeo has stated that no profits were made during those periods. That fact is not agreed but the ACCC did not dispute his statement. I will therefore proceed on the assumption that no profits were made. It is agreed that Study Overseas Now employed four full time staff.
6 Mr Yeo was at all material times a servant or agent of Study Overseas Now
authorised by it to conduct business in its name and
on its behalf and was
responsible for its day to day management. It is agreed that at all material
times Study Overseas Now and
each of the following businesses:
(a) Kokos
International Pty Ltd (Kokos);
(b) IAE Edu Net Perth Pty Ltd
(IAE);
(c) Nanuri Education Centre (Nanuri); and
(d) Jobbok International
Pty Ltd (Jobbok)
were competitive with each other in the supply of education
consulting services.
7 Schools published details of the fees payable for each course of study offered and where a student enrolled at a course at a School through Study Overseas Now:
(a) the student paid the tuition fee to Study Overseas Now and Study Overseas Now remitted part or all of the tuition fee paid by the student to the school;
(b) the school paid a commission to Study Overseas Now for enrolling the
student in the course.
The commission was calculated as a percentage of the
tuition fee and was paid in one of the following ways:
(a) the School paid a commission to Study Overseas Now upon receipt of the full tuition fee; or
(b) the School permitted Study Overseas Now to deduct its commission from the
tuition fee and remit the balance to the School.
The manner and payment and
the amount of commission agreed to be paid by a School varied according to the
particular terms and conditions
agreed between Study Overseas Now and each
school. Study Overseas Now did not directly charge fees to students for
supplying education
consulting services.
8 Before early to mid-July 2004 the market comprised Kokos, Nanuri, Jobbok, Study Overseas Now, the Schools and an unknown number of small service providers. The practice then, of offering or agreeing to accept a discount tuition fee, was commonly engaged in by competitors in the Perth market for education consulting services. In mid-July 2004 IAE entered the Perth market. There followed a meeting between Chad Kim on behalf of Kokos, Ace Pae on behalf of IAE, Rebekah Cabalt on behalf of Nanuri, Bernard Yeo on behalf of Study Overseas Now and Jacob Kim on behalf of Jobbok. Those present at the meeting made a written agreement on behalf of their respective employers to the effect that in the supply of education consulting services to students or prospective students:
(a) the parties would refrain from engaging in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a discounted tuition fee;
(b) the parties would monitor each other’s conduct in relation to the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a discounted tuition fee;
(c) the parties would report any discounted tuition fee to the "Council of Korean Agency" which would be constituted by a representative of each of the parties; and
(d) any party that engaged in the practice of offering or agreeing to accept a discounted tuition fee would be banned from enrolling students in the relevant School for three months.
Study Overseas Now had not at any time before entering into the written agreement offered or accepted discounted tuition fees from students. It did not accept discounted tuition fees thereafter.
9 Neither Study Overseas Now nor Mr Yeo have engaged in a contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act) in the past. Study Overseas Now cooperated with the ACCC before and following the commencement of the proceedings. Before being joined in the proceedings Mr Yeo did not provide full cooperation, however since being joined he has offered full cooperation.
10 The declaratory and injunctive orders proposed against the seventh and eighth respondents and to which they consent are in accordance with those sought against the other respondents. I will therefore make the declaratory and injunctive orders. They are within power and appropriate. The outstanding question is that of penalty.
11 In penalty submissions filed by the ACCC it was submitted that Study Overseas Now did not at any time before or after entering into the written agreement, offer or accept discounted tuition fees from students. Therefore it was submitted there was no evidence of direct loss or damage caused to particular consumers by the company’s conduct or by that of Mr Yeo. To the extent that they participated in creating the written agreement given effect to by the first to sixth respondents, their conduct contributed to loss and damage caused by those respondents.
12 The ACCC accepted that Mr Yeo was ignorant of the fact that the conduct was unlawful. It acknowledged that there was no evidence that he had concealed or attempted to conceal it. It was submitted that he engaged in the conduct deliberately in response to concerns about the commercial viability of the business but not with the intention to contravene the Act. It was, however, clear from the face of the written agreement that he would have been aware that the conduct would have a detrimental effect on competition in the market. It appears also to have been common ground that Study Overseas Now did not take any steps to give effect to the written agreement.
13 Mr Yeo was employed as the manager for the company. The company had no compliance program in place. The parties agreed that a principal object of a penalty under s 76 of the Act is deterrence. It was submitted that Study Overseas Now was arguably in a position of considerable responsibility and power relative to the students it serviced.
14 Study Overseas Now and Mr Yeo filed their own submissions as to penalty.
15 Study Overseas Now was deregistered on 18 March 2006 and was only reinstated for the purposes of these proceedings. During its period of registration it was a small scale company with only four employees. It was submitted that the offending conduct occurred during mid-2004 for a period of approximately five months and was never initiated nor implemented by the company.
16 The company also referred to its cooperation with the ACCC, the fact that its conduct was undertaken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Act and that it had an insignificant percentage of the relevant market. At the time of its conduct, Mr Yeo was the only person who represented Study Overseas Now.
17 In addition to those considerations Mr Yeo, for his part, pointed out that he has no assets and is currently not employed although he is actively looking for employment. When he was working for Study Overseas Now he rarely drew a personal wage. During his employment with the company he worked on two other jobs to sustain its debts and to pay associated business expenses. He submitted that given his financial circumstances either no pecuniary penalty or in the alternative, a small pecuniary penalty would achieve the current objectives of the Act. The factual aspects of his submissions were not disputed by the ACCC.
18 In my opinion there is no point in imposing a pecuniary penalty on the company which has been re-registered for the purposes of these proceedings. There is a point of distinction to be drawn between the involvement of Nanuri and Ms Cabalt with which I have already dealt, and the involvement of Study Overseas Now and Mr Yeo. In the case of Nanuri and Ms Cabalt there was evidence that the business did discontinue the practice of offering discounted tuition fees albeit, as it turned out, to its own detriment. Neither Study Overseas Now nor Mr Yeo changed their practice after entering into the agreement. Their practice before entering into the agreement had been not to offer discounted tuition fees. Another point of distinction is the asset position of both the company and Mr Yeo.
19 So far as Mr Yeo is concerned, I will, impose a penalty of $500 which reflects the limited scope of his involvement in the contravention, the absence of any implementing conduct, his ignorance of the law and his personal circumstances. The fact that he has cooperated in reaching a resolution without the need for any litigation is also a factor in his favour.
20 I will make orders for costs against the company and against Mr Yeo to be attached or agreed. Whether recovery against the company is possible is questionable.
21 I will also make the outstanding declarations which were agreed for the other respondents.
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Counsel for the Seventh and Eighth Respondents: Solicitors for the Seventh and Eighth Respondents: |
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Mr D Vilensky Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky |
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/549.html