Inala Plaza Discount Smokes Pty Ltd v Maembe Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 494

Inala Plaza Discount Smokes Pty Ltd v Maembe Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 494

Discovery against Woolworths was refused because the documents sought either did not exist, had been destroyed in the ordinary course, were not Inala-specific, or were not sufficiently relevant, particularly in the absence of Inala sales and price material. Discovery against Franklins was ordered only for categories relating to actual cigarette sales, pricing information and management reports because those documents could bear on historic market share and on how the cigarette market at Inala Plaza Shopping Centre may have behaved without the newsagency's cigarette sales; documents concerning cost of cigarettes, profitability, margins and rebates were not shown to be sufficiently directly...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Third Party Discovery Pursuant to O 15 a of the Federal Court Rules / Notice of Motion Filed 29 May 1996 Determined on 18 June 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed as against Woolworths (Qld) Pty Limited and granted in part as against Franklins Limited.
Legal Topics
['non Party Discovery' 'relevance of Documents Sought' 'commercially Sensitive Material' 'costs' 'confidentiality Orders']
['practice and Procedure'] ['non Party Discovery' 'relevance of Documents Sought' 'commercially Sensitive Material' 'costs' 'confidentiality Orders']

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

Application for Third Party Discovery Pursuant to O 15 a of the Federal Court Rules / Notice of Motion Filed 29 May 1996 Determined on 18 June 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths (Qld) Pty Limited should be ordered to give discovery of documents concerning cigarette sales, pricing and rebates connected with the Inala store or wider operations.' 'Whether Franklins Limited should be ordered to give discovery of documents concerning cigarette sales, pricing, costs, margins, rebates and management reports for the period August 1991 to 31 March 1995.' 'Whether commercially sensitive material or non-party documents were sufficiently relevant to justify discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery against Woolworths was refused because the documents sought either did not exist, had been destroyed in the ordinary course, were not Inala-specific, or were not sufficiently relevant, particularly in the absence of Inala sales and price material. Discovery against Franklins was ordered only for categories relating to actual cigarette sales, pricing information and management reports because those documents could bear on historic market share and on how the cigarette market at Inala Plaza Shopping Centre may have behaved without the newsagency's cigarette sales; documents concerning cost of cigarettes, profitability, margins and rebates were not shown to be sufficiently directly...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as against Woolworths (Qld) Pty Limited and granted in part as against Franklins Limited.

Orders

  • ['Franklins Limited prepare, file and serve within twenty-one days an affidavit of documents for the categories in paragraphs 1(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of the notice of motion filed 29 May 1996.' 'Subject to all proper objections, Franklins Limited produce for inspection the documents referred to in that affidavit...