Perjury complaint requires preliminary material of intentional falsity; a weak defence alone cannot justify criminal prosecution.

A complaint for false evidence or perjury cannot be ordered merely because a defence appears untenable or unconvincing. A court must first find, on preliminary enquiry, material showing intentional falsity and that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere contradiction, suspicion, or rejection of a defence on a civil standard is insufficient to invoke criminal process. On the facts, the material did not establish that foundation, so the direction to lodge a complaint against the company was unjustified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to lodge a complaint against the company for allegedly making a false defence was justified in law.

Analysis: A complaint for an offence such as false evidence or perjury is not to be directed merely because a defence is found to be untenable or unconvincing. The court must be satisfied, on a preliminary enquiry, that there is material showing intentional falsity and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed. Mere contradiction, suspicion, or rejection of a defence on a civil standard does not by itself warrant criminal prosecution. The material before the court did not establish such a foundation, nor did it justify invoking the criminal process against the company.

Conclusion: The direction to the Registrar to lodge a complaint was unjustified and was set aside.

---