Woods, in the matter of T & F.S. Woods Pty Ltd v Woods [2021] FCA 1220

Woods, in the matter of T & F.S. Woods Pty Ltd v Woods [2021] FCA 1220

The affidavits were not subject to the implied undertaking because, although r 2.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) required an originating process or interlocutory process to be supported by an affidavit stating the facts in support, the specific information and documents included in the affidavits were provided voluntarily and not under sufficient compulsion. Bound by Silverstein, the Court concluded that leave was not required to use the affidavits in the FCFCOA Proceedings and made a declaration to that effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Release From Implied Undertaking in Corporations Proceeding / Application Determined After Hearing on 5 October 2021
Outcome
Declaration made that the affidavits were not subject to an obligation owed to the Court not to use them for any purpose other than that for which they were given; the interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['implied Undertaking' 'harman Undertaking' 'use of Affidavits in Other Proceedings' 'supporting Affidavits Under Federal Court (corporations) Rules 2000 (cth)' 'leave to Use Documents Disclosed in Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['implied Undertaking' 'harman Undertaking' 'use of Affidavits in Other Proceedings' 'supporting Affidavits Under Federal Court (corporations) Rules 2000 (cth)' 'leave to Use Documents Disclosed in Proceedings']

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

Interlocutory Application for Release From Implied Undertaking in Corporations Proceeding / Application Determined After Hearing on 5 October 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether affidavits filed in support of the originating process and interlocutory process were subject to the implied undertaking described in Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125.' 'Whether r 2.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth), requiring an originating process or interlocutory process to be supported by affidavit, constituted sufficient compulsion to attract the implied undertaking.' 'Whether the second plaintiff required leave to rely on the affidavits in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia proceeding BRG 627 of 2020.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavits were not subject to the implied undertaking because, although r 2.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) required an originating process or interlocutory process to be supported by an affidavit stating the facts in support, the specific information and documents included in the affidavits were provided voluntarily and not under sufficient compulsion. Bound by Silverstein, the Court concluded that leave was not required to use the affidavits in the FCFCOA Proceedings and made a declaration to that effect.

Court Disposition

Declaration made that the affidavits were not subject to an obligation owed to the Court not to use them for any purpose other than that for which they were given; the interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The affidavits of Mark Smith filed on 24 July 2019, of David Woods filed on 24 July 2019, and of Christian Dreyer filed on 27 August 2019 in the proceedings are not the subject of an obligation owed to this Court not to use them for any purpose other than that for which they were given.' "The second plaintiff's...