Davis v Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2022] FCA 553

Davis v Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2022] FCA 553

There is no evidence that the standard discovery already ordered has not been given conscientiously or is otherwise inadequate to ensure a fair trial; therefore, there is no basis to order further or non-standard discovery under FCR 20.15 or 20.20.

Parties
First Applicant: Geoffrey Peter Davis; Second Applicant: Geoffrey William Davis; First Respondent: Quintis Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 092 200 854); Second Respondent: Frank Cullity Wilson; Third Respondent: Ernst & Young (A Firm) (ABN 75 288 172 742)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Commercial and Corporations Proceedings / Application for Non Standard Discovery; Disposition at Application Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory application for non-standard discovery dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Standard and Non Standard Discovery, Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth), Case Management
Practice and Procedure Corporations Insolvency Discovery Standard and Non Standard Discovery Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Case Management

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Peter Davis

First Applicant

Geoffrey William Davis

Second Applicant

Quintis Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 092 200 854)

First Respondent

Frank Cullity Wilson

Second Respondent

Ernst & Young (A Firm) (ABN 75 288 172 742)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Commercial and Corporations Proceedings / Application for Non Standard Discovery; Disposition at Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further and specific (non-standard) discovery should be ordered under FCR 20.15 or 20.20 when standard discovery has already been ordered
  2. 2 Whether there is justification for supplementary discovery in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence that the standard discovery already ordered has not been given conscientiously or is otherwise inadequate to ensure a fair trial; therefore, there is no basis to order further or non-standard discovery under FCR 20.15 or 20.20.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application for non-standard discovery dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application be dismissed with costs.