Abram v American Express International Inc [2001] FCA 292

Abram v American Express International Inc [2001] FCA 292

Although the respondent had apparently complied with the earlier order by filing a verified list, the intended result of the discovery order had not been achieved. The respondent misconceived its discovery obligations by limiting discovery to documents concerning the applicant's exact description of a five-small-purchases rule, when documents recording or evidencing the respondent's Out Of Pattern Spending procedures, detection methods, computer software and merchant instructions were relevant to the pleaded misleading and deceptive conduct claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Discovery / Notice of Motion Concerning Sufficiency of Discovery
Outcome
Further discovery ordered; the applicant's proposed form of orders was not adopted.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'specific Discovery' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['discovery' 'specific Discovery' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Discovery / Notice of Motion Concerning Sufficiency of Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's verified list of documents complied in substance with the discovery order made on 10 August 2000." "Whether documents, including computer software, concerning the respondent's Out Of Pattern Spending procedures were discoverable." 'Whether further discovery orders should be made where apparent compliance with an order had not achieved the intended result.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent had apparently complied with the earlier order by filing a verified list, the intended result of the discovery order had not been achieved. The respondent misconceived its discovery obligations by limiting discovery to documents concerning the applicant's exact description of a five-small-purchases rule, when documents recording or evidencing the respondent's Out Of Pattern Spending procedures, detection methods, computer software and merchant instructions were relevant to the pleaded misleading and deceptive conduct claim.

Court Disposition

Further discovery ordered; the applicant's proposed form of orders was not adopted.

Orders

  • ['The respondent should discover documents, including computer software, which record or evidence the procedures which were adopted or applied by the respondent in NSW in 1997 and 1998 with respect to "Out Of Pattern Spending" as described in the statement of Michelle Mancy forming part of Exhibit A ("OOPS...