Re. Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 698

Re. Group Pty Ltd v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 698

Discovery about the truth of the underlying commercial dispute was refused because each side already knew its own version of events and any forensic advantage from such discovery did not warrant significantly complicating the case by turning it into a large commercial trial of the underlying dispute. Discovery was allowed where it was unopposed, consented to, or likely to bear on a live non-admission, and the Respondents' remaining unopposed categories were limited to the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 because wider discovery was not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement and Injurious Falsehood Proceeding / Determination of Discovery Issues on the Papers
Outcome
Discovery ordered in part and refused in part; parties ordered to bring in appropriate draft orders within seven days.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'injurious Falsehood' 'proportionality in Discovery']
['intellectual Property' 'copyright and Industrial Designs' 'civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'copyright Infringement' 'injurious Falsehood' 'proportionality in 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement and Injurious Falsehood Proceeding / Determination of Discovery Issues on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Respondent should give discovery of categories 1-4 sought by the Applicants.' 'Whether the Second Respondent should give discovery of categories 5-6 and 9 sought by the Applicants and whether categories 7-8 should be disallowed.' 'Whether the Applicants should give discovery to the Second Respondent of categories 3-5 subject to a date range and whether categories 1-2 and 6-11 should be disallowed.' 'Whether discovery about the truth of the underlying commercial dispute should be permitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery about the truth of the underlying commercial dispute was refused because each side already knew its own version of events and any forensic advantage from such discovery did not warrant significantly complicating the case by turning it into a large commercial trial of the underlying dispute. Discovery was allowed where it was unopposed, consented to, or likely to bear on a live non-admission, and the Respondents' remaining unopposed categories were limited to the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 because wider discovery was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Discovery ordered in part and refused in part; parties ordered to bring in appropriate draft orders within seven days.

Orders

  • ['The parties bring in appropriate draft orders within seven (7) days.' 'The First Respondent should give discovery of categories 1-4 sought by the Applicants.' 'The Second Respondent should give discovery of categories 5-6 and 9 sought by the Applicants.' "Applicants' categories 7-8 were disallowed." 'The...