Re Elders Australia Ltd Super John Pty Ltd & Ors v Futuris Rural Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1377

Re Elders Australia Ltd Super John Pty Ltd & Ors v Futuris Rural Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1377

It would be inappropriate and oppressive to order the broad discovery sought by the respondent as the applicants' schedules, even with noted omissions and confidentiality issues, do not establish a pattern of activity with significant probative value as required by the Evidence Act. The schedule must be corrected and verified but no further discovery should be ordered at this interlocutory stage; costs related to the correction are ordered against the applicants, with other costs to be determined or reserved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law/civil Application (cross Claim and Case Management Dispute) / Interlocutory Orders and Case Management Determination
Outcome
Discovery orders sought by the respondent on 4 September 1998 refused. Applicants to correct and verify revised schedule. Costs of correction to be paid by applicants. Costs of delay in expert report adjourned for future determination. Reserved costs to be borne by each party.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'case Management' 'abuse of Process' 'confidentiality' 'expert Evidence' 'costs']
['corporations Law' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'case Management' 'abuse of Process' 'confidentiality' 'expert Evidence' 'costs']

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

Corporations Law/civil Application (cross Claim and Case Management Dispute) / Interlocutory Orders and Case Management Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the discovery orders sought by the respondent were oppressive and inappropriate at this stage of proceedings' 'Whether information provided by the applicants establishes a pattern of activity with significant probative value under the Evidence Act tendency rule' 'Whether the schedules provided by the applicants adequately comply with prior court orders' 'How confidentiality claims (including those involving third parties) should be managed in the discovery process']

Ratio Decidendi

It would be inappropriate and oppressive to order the broad discovery sought by the respondent as the applicants' schedules, even with noted omissions and confidentiality issues, do not establish a pattern of activity with significant probative value as required by the Evidence Act. The schedule must be corrected and verified but no further discovery should be ordered at this interlocutory stage; costs related to the correction are ordered against the applicants, with other costs to be determined or reserved.

Court Disposition

Discovery orders sought by the respondent on 4 September 1998 refused. Applicants to correct and verify revised schedule. Costs of correction to be paid by applicants. Costs of delay in expert report adjourned for future determination. Reserved costs to be borne by each party.

Orders

  • ['The orders sought by the respondent on 4 September 1998 be refused.' 'Applicants to file and serve by 6 November 1998 a corrected and verified revised schedule of share acquisitions including omitted material, subject to existing confidentiality orders.' "Applicants to pay respondent's costs related to the...