Salim v Loh (No 2) [2005] FCA 1417

Salim v Loh (No 2) [2005] FCA 1417

Applying the restrictive discovery criteria in Federal Court Rules O 15 r 2, the Court ordered discovery only for categories shown to support or adversely affect a party's case within appropriate subject-matter and time limits, and refused categories that were too wide, irrelevant, not shown to be within a party's power to produce, or based only on a line of inquiry.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Discovery / Reasons for Judgment on Disputed Categories of Discoverable Documents
Outcome
Discovery ordered in part and refused in part; each party to bear its own costs of the directions hearings and associated argument and submissions relating to disputed discovery categories.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'federal Court Rules' 'reasonable Search' 'categories of Discoverable Documents']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'federal Court Rules' 'reasonable Search' 'categories of Discoverable Documents']

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 / Reasons for Judgment on Disputed Categories of Discoverable Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether disputed categories of documents sought by the parties should be discovered under Federal Court Rules O 15 r 2.' 'Whether particular discovery requests were too wide, irrelevant, or amounted only to a line of inquiry.' 'Whether discovery should be limited by subject matter, time period, possession, custody or control.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the restrictive discovery criteria in Federal Court Rules O 15 r 2, the Court ordered discovery only for categories shown to support or adversely affect a party's case within appropriate subject-matter and time limits, and refused categories that were too wide, irrelevant, not shown to be within a party's power to produce, or based only on a line of inquiry.

Court Disposition

Discovery ordered in part and refused in part; each party to bear its own costs of the directions hearings and associated argument and submissions relating to disputed discovery categories.

Orders

  • ["In each of WAD9 and WAD10 of 2004, the applicants do, on or before 26 October 2005, give discovery by list of Category 7 in the third respondent's discovery notice, limited to the period 1 June 1998 to 31 March 1999." "In each of WAD9 and WAD10 of 2004, the applicants do, on or before 26 October 2005, give...