Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 4 July 1906
Page: 1036

Mr ISAACS (Indi) (Attorney-General) . - Yes, I have said that I think clause 9 meets the objection. The position would be serious if ft were not for the fact that a corporation can only act by individuals. As I explained a little time ago, a foreign corporation, wherever formed, must have its residence or its domicile where it is carrying on business. If a foreign corporation establishes' a branch, and puts its name up, it is there operating, and it can only, from the nature of things, operate by individuals. If a foreign corporation is a member of a combination in contravention of the Bill, and if under clause 9 some person in the employ of the corporation, directly or indirectly, is knowingly concerned in or proved guilty of an offence, he is dealt with as an original offender.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON (NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES) - Can both the corporation and the agent be penalized ?

Mr ISAACS - Of course. What we say is that the corporation is a party to the offence, and is liable to a penalty of ,£500 - that is all that can be done to a company.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON (NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES) - But having done that, can the agent also be penalized ?

Mr ISAACS - Yes. It is as if two persons, a master and servant, were committing an offence, and they can both be punished.

Mr Kelly - Would anybody penalized under clause 9 have to pay the penalty under clause 5, in view of clause 6 ? I am referring to the question of unfair competition.

Mr ISAACS - -Th-ere is no penalty under clause 6.

Mr Kelly - Clause 6 imposes the onus of proof unden certain contingencies; will the onus of proof be equally imposed under clause 9 ?

Mr ISAACS - Yes.

Mr Kelly - Then it seems to me that clause 9 does meet the case.

Mr ISAACS - I omitted to make clause 5 agree in another respect with clause 4. With that end in view, I should like to move that after the word " engages " the words "or continues" be inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments (by Mr. Isaacs) agreed to-

That after the word "engages," line 5, the words " or continues " be inserted ; that the words " to do any act or thing," lines 5 and 6, be left out; that the words "in restraint of," line 7, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, " with intent to restrain " ; that the words " the design of destroying 01 injuring," line io, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " intent to destroy or injure."

Amendment (by Mr. Isaacs) proposed -

That the words " in the opinion of the jury," line 13, be left out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - ls it meant that there shall be no jury at all?

Suggest corrections