GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) [2011] FCA 587

GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) [2011] FCA 587

It is not appropriate to seek production of the documents the subject of the notice to produce because they are better dealt with by application to the trial judge for possible re-opening, and the notice to produce should not be used to frustrate the effect or efficiency of the freezing order, particularly where no final orders have been made and the evidence pertains to material already considered at trial.

Parties
First Applicant: GM Holden Ltd (ACN 006 893 232); Second Applicant: General Motors LLC; Third Applicant: GM Global Technology Operations LLC; Eighth Respondent: Belaaa Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly Taleb Tyres (Aust) Pty Limited) (ACN 107 451 794); Ninth Respondent: Ahmed Taleb; Tenth Respondent: Mohamed Taleb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Trial, Prior to Final Orders on Damages
Outcome
The notice to produce was set aside. The ninth and tenth respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.
Legal Topics
Notice to Produce, Freezing Orders, Costs, Disclosure of Documents, Damages
Civil Procedure Notice to Produce Freezing Orders Costs Disclosure of Documents Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GM Holden Ltd (ACN 006 893 232)

First Applicant

General Motors LLC

Second Applicant

GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Third Applicant

Belaaa Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly Taleb Tyres (Aust) Pty Limited) (ACN 107 451 794)

Eighth Respondent

Ahmed Taleb

Ninth Respondent

Mohamed Taleb

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Post Trial, Prior to Final Orders on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 issued by the ninth and tenth respondents should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues before the Court at the stage of the freezing order
  3. 3 Appropriateness of using a notice to produce to obtain documents relevant to quantum post-trial

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate to seek production of the documents the subject of the notice to produce because they are better dealt with by application to the trial judge for possible re-opening, and the notice to produce should not be used to frustrate the effect or efficiency of the freezing order, particularly where no final orders have been made and the evidence pertains to material already considered at trial.

Court Disposition

The notice to produce was set aside. The ninth and tenth respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.

Orders

  • The notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 and filed by the ninth and tenth respondents is set aside.
  • The ninth and tenth respondents pay the applicants' costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.