unnecessarily extended the duration of the hearing)[2]". However, the
reasons given[3] by the Commissioner do not stop there. The appendix goes
on--

"The management of the airline instructed its counsel to deny every
allegation of fault, and to counter-attack by ascribing total
culpability to the air crew ... Apart from that, there were
material elements of information in the possession of the airline
which were originally not disclosed ... it was not a question of
the airline putting all its cards on the table. The cards were
produced reluctantly, and at long intervals, and I have little
doubt that there are one or two which still lie hidden in the
pack."

When discussing the legal implications of the order for costs under that
particular heading earlier in the judgment we stated that on purely
verbal grounds it might be possible to draw refined distinctions between
parts of the Report which are highly critical of the position taken up
by the airline at the inquiry on the one hand and the effect this had on
the duration of the hearing on the other. But there can be no doubt that
in the context of this Report and the conclusions reached by the
Commissioner concerning conspiracy and otherwise any ordinary reader
would feel satisfied that the imposition of an order for costs in the
sum of $150,000 was nothing less than the exaction of a penalty. In
those circumstances and by reason of the conclusions we have reached
concerning the invalidity of the challenged paragraphs we are satisfied
that the order must be set aside.

Concerning the second ground advanced on behalf of the airline it is
sufficient to say that even if it had been appropriate to make an award