Case: Union Bank of Australia Ltd v Puddy [1949] VLR 242
Outcome: cited
In the present case, for the reasons indicated at the hearing, I determined that I would not rule on whether the respondents should be required to make their election until after the parties had addressed argument on the no-case submission, and as to whether the respondents should be required to make an election. It seemed to me that it was appropriate to take this course in order to understand the nature of the argument the respondents sought to make in saying that they had no case to answer. This was the approach adopted by Fullagar J in Union Bank of Australia Ltd v Puddy [1949] VLR 242 (" Puddy "); by Finkelstein J in Compaq Computer ; by Branson J at first instance in Rasomen (see Rasomen Pty Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 540 at 543); by Sundberg J in Tru Floor Service Pty Ltd v Jenkins (No 2) (2006) 232 ALR 532 (" Tru Floor ") at 537; and approved by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Protean . 20 Having heard the parties' arguments, I would not put the respondents to their election in respect of that part of their no-case submission that concerned the scope of the definition of "building industrial action". Had the respondents been successful on this aspect of their no-case submission, they would have defeated the applicant's s 38 case against them, without needing to answer this part of the applicant's case further. The respondents' argument was to the effect that there was an evidentiary hiatus in the applicant's case because the applicant had not adduced any evidence that any "ban, limitation or restriction" had been imposed by employees in respect of the work to which the ban, limitation or restriction related. In order to succeed on this limb of their no-case submission, the respondents had to persuade the Court that their construction of the definition of "building industrial action" was the preferable one, and that the applicant had adduced no evidence on an important element of it. For the following reasons, the respondents have failed to persuade me that their construction of the definition should be adopted, but, equally, it seems to me just and convenient that I rule on this question now without putting them to their election. I have heard the argument. The consideration of this part of their no-case submission involved no consideration of disputed evidence, and, as stated above, if accepted, it would have completely answered the applicant's allegations that they had contravened s 38 of the BCII Act : compare Compaq Computer at 7; Residues Treatment &amp; Trading Co Ltd v Southern Resources Ltd (1989) 52 SASR 54 (" Residues Treatment ") at 68 per Perry J; and Puddy at 245. 24 In Amcor , the applicant alleged that the respondents had contravened s 45(2)(a)(i) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), a provision which attracted substantial penalties. The applicant's evidence in chief concluded on the first day of the trial, when counsel for the respondents submitted that they should be permitted to make a no-case submission without being put to their election. Sackville J held that the circumstances justified a departure from the general rule that a decision will not be given on a no-case submission unless the submitting party elects to call no evidence. His Honour accepted that the case fell within the third category mentioned by Perry J in Residues Treatment at 68 (on consideration of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff taken at its highest from the plaintiff's point of view, the evidence could not support the cause of action pleaded) and that, in such a case, "there must be unusual circumstances to warrant the respondents being permitted to make their no case submission without being required not to adduce any evidence": see Amcor at 358. Sackville J held, however, that the circumstances were sufficiently unusual and that it was in the interests of justice for the respondents to be permitted to make their no-case submission without making an election. His Honour said (at 358): First and most important, I took the view that this is a case in which serious allegations of contraventions of the TP Act had been made against each of the respondents. If the allegations were to be established, the corporate respondents would be exposed to pecuniary penalties of up to $10,000,000 and the individual respondents to pecuniary penalties of up to $500,000. Adverse findings might well have serious consequences in terms of loss of business reputation. The authorities recognise that a departure from the general rule is often justified where fraud is alleged against the moving party. In Union Bank of Australia v Puddy [1949] VLR 242 , Fullagar J said (at 246) that where fraud is alleged: it may often be wrong to suggest that a party should submit himself to cross-examination before it is seen that there is really some evidence against him. See also Protean at 215 per Young CJ; at 236 per Fullagar J; [Compaq Computer] at 7. The present case is not one in which fraud has been alleged, but in my opinion it is analogous to a fraud case by reason of the very serious allegations that have been made against each of the respondents: see [Trade Practices Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd (1980) 43 FLR 55] at 61; Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd [1978] ATPR 40-097 (Fisher J), at 17,958. The analogy is in my view strengthened by the fact that the definition of 'exclusionary provision' in s 4D of the TP Act incorporates the concept of 'purpose' in a subjective sense: ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460 at 474-7 ... The respondents in this case relied on these passages.