Drilling & Grouting Services Pty Ltd v Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1456

Drilling & Grouting Services Pty Ltd v Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1456

The respondent was entitled to additional discovery because financial reports, statements and tax returns relating to the undertaking the subject of the proceeding were sufficiently connected to the applicant's claimed loss and damage, and relevant electronic documents should be discovered in native format if they existed. However, financial information concerning unrelated jobs was too remote at this stage. The applicant's broad request for particular discovery largely failed because many classes, especially records concerning CQ Drilling after termination and broad operational or geological categories, were not shown to be sufficiently relevant, specific or proportionate; limited...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Discovery Particular Discovery / Determined on the Papers on Respondent's Notice of Motion Filed 29 September 2009 and Applicant's Notice of Motion Filed 9 October 2009
Outcome
Respondent's notice of motion for additional discovery granted; applicant's notice of motion for particular discovery dismissed except for specified categories, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of both motions.
Legal Topics
['general Discovery' 'particular Discovery' 'additional Discovery' 'electronic Discovery' 'native Electronic Format' 'relevance of Documents' 'costs of Interlocutory Motions']
['civil Procedure' 'discovery' 'contract' 'trade Practices'] ['general Discovery' 'particular Discovery' 'additional Discovery' 'electronic Discovery' 'native Electronic Format' 'relevance of Documents' 'costs of Interlocutory Motions']

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

Practice and Procedure Discovery Particular Discovery / Determined on the Papers on Respondent's Notice of Motion Filed 29 September 2009 and Applicant's Notice of Motion Filed 9 October 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should give additional discovery of financial performance reports, financial statements and tax returns relating to its undertaking in respect of the respondent, including documents in native electronic format.' 'Whether financial information relating to other jobs or undertakings was relevant to the calculation of loss and damage in the proceeding.' 'Whether the respondent should be ordered to give particular discovery of the numerous categories of drilling, operational, email, safety and related records sought by the applicant.' 'Whether the prerequisites for particular discovery under O 15, r 8 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) were satisfied for each requested class of documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was entitled to additional discovery because financial reports, statements and tax returns relating to the undertaking the subject of the proceeding were sufficiently connected to the applicant's claimed loss and damage, and relevant electronic documents should be discovered in native format if they existed. However, financial information concerning unrelated jobs was too remote at this stage. The applicant's broad request for particular discovery largely failed because many classes, especially records concerning CQ Drilling after termination and broad operational or geological categories, were not shown to be sufficiently relevant, specific or proportionate; limited...

Court Disposition

Respondent's notice of motion for additional discovery granted; applicant's notice of motion for particular discovery dismissed except for specified categories, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of both motions.

Orders

  • ["Within 14 days following the date of the order, the applicant by its director, Warren Mark Symons, file with the Court and serve on the respondent an affidavit stating whether any document of the classes set out in orders 1(a)-(d) to the respondent's notice of motion is or has been in the applicant's possession,...