Lisec Australia Pty Ltd v Saremach Pty Ltd;; Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1127

Lisec Australia Pty Ltd v Saremach Pty Ltd;; Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1127

The application for discovery was dismissed because the FGS parties did not demonstrate a real need for the documents or electronic data sought. The design opinions relied on were based on inspection of the disassembled machine and did not indicate that access to documents concerning other BAZ machines would improve or strengthen those opinions. The requested documents were not shown to assist in determining normal operation or the actual expert issues, and the electronic data was not shown to have a demonstrated link to the design deficiencies. In those circumstances, there was no basis to order discovery or to require Lisec Australia to seek data from Lisec Austria.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Recovery of the Cost of a Reconditioned Glass Cutting Machine and a Damages Claim for Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Representations / Further Amended Notice of Motion for Discovery Before Hearing
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
['need for Discovery' 'discovery of Documents Relating to Similar Machines' 'discovery of Electronic Data' 'sabre Order']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery'] ['need for Discovery' 'discovery of Documents Relating to Similar Machines' 'discovery of Electronic Data' 'sabre Order']

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

Equity Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Recovery of the Cost of a Reconditioned Glass Cutting Machine and a Damages Claim for Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Representations / Further Amended Notice of Motion for Discovery Before Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the FGS parties had demonstrated a need for discovery of documents concerning the performance of similar BAZ machines in Australia.' "Whether discovery of electronic data from other machines should be ordered where the data was stored on a server maintained by Lisec Australia's parent company." 'Whether a request or Sabre order should be made requiring Lisec Australia to seek electronic records from Lisec Austria.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for discovery was dismissed because the FGS parties did not demonstrate a real need for the documents or electronic data sought. The design opinions relied on were based on inspection of the disassembled machine and did not indicate that access to documents concerning other BAZ machines would improve or strengthen those opinions. The requested documents were not shown to assist in determining normal operation or the actual expert issues, and the electronic data was not shown to have a demonstrated link to the design deficiencies. In those circumstances, there was no basis to order discovery or to require Lisec Australia to seek data from Lisec Austria.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The further amended notice of motion filed on 7 April 2017, as amended in court, be dismissed.' 'The costs of the motion be cost in the cause.']