Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v ANZ Banking Group Ltd & Ors (No 25) [1996] FCA 36

Allstate Life Insurance Co & Ors v ANZ Banking Group Ltd & Ors (No 25) [1996] FCA 36

The evidence did not establish that Skadden had failed to understand its obligation to give discovery or that discovery had not in substance been given; mere suspicion that documents were once in its possession is not enough to support a general order for further and better discovery.

Parties
Applicants: Allstate Life Insurance Co and the parties listed in Annexure A to the third further amended statement of claim; Respondents: Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited ACN 005 357 522 and the parties listed in Annexure B to the third further amended statement of claim; Applicant on the Motion: Price Waterhouse; Respondent to the Motion: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Motion for Further and Better Discovery / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Further and Better Discovery, Obligation to Give Discovery
Practice and Procedure Discovery Further and Better Discovery Obligation to Give Discovery

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allstate Life Insurance Co and the parties listed in Annexure A to the third further amended statement of claim

Applicants

Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited ACN 005 357 522 and the parties listed in Annexure B to the third further amended statement of claim

Respondents

Price Waterhouse

Applicant on the Motion

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Respondent to the Motion

Procedural Posture

Motion for Further and Better Discovery / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with its obligation to give discovery
  2. 2 Distinction between general order for further and better discovery and order for discovery of particular documents

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that Skadden had failed to understand its obligation to give discovery or that discovery had not in substance been given; mere suspicion that documents were once in its possession is not enough to support a general order for further and better discovery.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion for further and better discovery by Price Waterhouse dismissed
  • Order that Price Waterhouse pay the costs of Skadden of the motion