IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

                                  )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY    )NO. SG 51   of  1994

                                  )

GENERAL DIVISION                  )

              BETWEEN:      AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND

                             CONSUMER COMMISSION

                                  Applicant

              AND:         MONIER ROOFING LIMITED

                                  First Respondent

                             BORAL HOLLOSTONE MASONRY (South

                             Aust.) PTY LTD

                                       Second Respondent

                             HALLETT ROOFING SERVICES PTY LTD

                                       Third Respondent

                             DONALD ROSS McGLASHAN

                                       Fourth Respondent

                             TERRENCE EDWARD CARRIGAN

                                       Fifth Respondent

                             RAYMOND JAMES BROWNBILL

                                       Sixth Respondent

                             SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ROOF TILERS

                             ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

                                       Seventh Respondent

4 DECEMBER 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

     This is a proceeding instituted in the original

jurisdiction of the Court in South Australia, but transferred

to this registry. The proceeding is against a number of

respondents ‑ corporate and natural persons ‑ for recovery of

pecuniary penalties pursuant to B. 76 of the Trade Practices

Act 1974 ('the Act').      The proceedings relate to

contraventions of s6. 45(2)(a) and 45(2)(b) of the Act.

     The parties have been engaged for some time in

discussions with a view to reaching, if they could, and as

they have, agreement as to the disposition of the matter.

Joint submissions have been prepared by the parties' legal

advisers, they are placed with the papers, and I have read

them. The parties have also reached agreement, subject to the

court's concurrence, on what the appropriate orders should be.

The principles to be applied in cases of this kind appear

in the cases which I collated in Trade Practices Commission v

Hymix Industries Pty Limited (1995) ATPR 41‑369. which

have been subsequently decided have followed the approach

mentioned there.

I do not refer to the facts; they are fully set out in

the joint submissions of the parties.

I think the agreement that has been reached is broadly in

accord with what the Court would have done, based on the facts

as they are set out in the submissions. So, I propose to make

orders in accordance with the short minutes which have been

handed up by counsel and solicitors, initialled by me and

placed with the papers. Accordingly, the Court makes orders

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as set out in the minutes.

I certify that this and the preceding one

(1) pages are a true copy of the reasons

for judgment herein of the Honourable

Justice Lockhart.

       Associate:

       Dated:  4 December  1995

Counsel for the Applicant             Mr R A Finkelstein QC

                                      Mr G H Brandis

Solicitors for the Applicant               Australian Government

                                      Solicitor

Counsel for the First and             Mr R M Smith

Fourth Respondents

Solicitors for the First              Clayton Utz

and Fourth Respondents

Counsel for the Second and Fifth

Respondents                           Mr M H Tobias QC

Solicitors for the Second and              Blake Dawson Waldron

Fifth Respondents

Solicitors for Third and              Cowell Clarke

Sixth Respondents

Date of Hearing                       4 December 1995

Date of Judgment                      4 December 1995