Findlay v Next Financial Limited [2013] FCA 1038

Findlay v Next Financial Limited [2013] FCA 1038

The respondent was not permitted to make the broader redactions sought because the Court was not satisfied that any redaction should occur beyond usernames, passwords and BPAY numbers, which the applicants accepted. The documents had been identified in discovery as satisfying the directly relevant test, a further detailed relevance review would protract discovery, and any confidentiality undertakings to non-party investors did not justify suppressing the remaining information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Interlocutory Application Concerning Redaction of Information in Discovered Documents / Interlocutory Applications by the Respondent Seeking Orders Allowing Redaction Before Inspection by the Applicants
Outcome
The respondent's interlocutory applications seeking broader redactions were dismissed; limited redaction of usernames, passwords and BPAY numbers was allowed.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'redaction of Discovered Documents' 'confidentiality' 'managed Investment Scheme']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['discovery' 'redaction of Discovered Documents' 'confidentiality' 'managed Investment Scheme']

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; Interlocutory Application Concerning Redaction of Information in Discovered Documents / Interlocutory Applications by the Respondent Seeking Orders Allowing Redaction Before Inspection by the Applicants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should be permitted to redact names, contact details, account details and adviser information of non-party investors from discovered documents before inspection by the applicants.' 'Whether the information sought to be redacted was directly relevant to issues raised by the pleadings under R 20.14(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether confidentiality undertakings to non-party investors justified redaction of information from discovered documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not permitted to make the broader redactions sought because the Court was not satisfied that any redaction should occur beyond usernames, passwords and BPAY numbers, which the applicants accepted. The documents had been identified in discovery as satisfying the directly relevant test, a further detailed relevance review would protract discovery, and any confidentiality undertakings to non-party investors did not justify suppressing the remaining information.

Court Disposition

The respondent's interlocutory applications seeking broader redactions were dismissed; limited redaction of usernames, passwords and BPAY numbers was allowed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent produce for inspection by the applicants, on or before 11 September 2013, the discovered documents in the respondent's list of documents dated 19 July 2013 subject to redaction of usernames, passwords and BPAY numbers for non-party investors and for the applicants." 'The costs of the application be...