AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1272

AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1272

Orders for discovery should only be made for categories of documents that are properly linked to facts in issue in the proceedings and relevance must be ensured; where potential burden exists, methods such as sampling may reduce opression but will not generally exclude discovery if relevant information is not otherwise available to the defendant.

Parties
First Plaintiff/respondent: AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff/respondent: Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd; First Defendant/applicant: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Rita Almohty; Third Defendant: Kelly Burke; Fourth Defendant: Kate McClymont
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (equity, Discovery) / Pre Trial, Order for Discovery
Outcome
Orders for discovery made in respect of certain categories; some categories refused or limited.
Legal Topics
Discovery by Category
Civil Procedure Discovery by Category

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff/respondent

Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff/respondent

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

First Defendant/applicant

Rita Almohty

Second Defendant

Kelly Burke

Third Defendant

Kate McClymont

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (equity, Discovery) / Pre Trial, Order for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether categories for discovery are properly linked to facts in issue
  2. 2 Appropriate scope of discovery by category under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for discovery should only be made for categories of documents that are properly linked to facts in issue in the proceedings and relevance must be ensured; where potential burden exists, methods such as sampling may reduce opression but will not generally exclude discovery if relevant information is not otherwise available to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Orders for discovery made in respect of certain categories; some categories refused or limited.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to give defendants discovery of documents in specified categories by 10 October 2009, including written complaints by AMI patients (with sampling), nominated telephone call recordings, and scientific evidence.
  • Expert evidence to be served by 9 October 2009.