Veolia Water Australia Pty Ltd v Centennial Springvale Pty Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1025

Veolia Water Australia Pty Ltd v Centennial Springvale Pty Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1025

The identification order should be made because, without it, VWA could not determine which data produced in response to the earlier discovery order was Mines Data and much of the discovery would remain inutile for the purpose of deciding whether to commence proceedings; making the order was desirable to ensure the efficacy of the earlier discovery order, and the Customer adduced no evidence of prejudice. The affidavit order should not be made because unchallenged evidence explained the discovery process and timing, there was no reason to doubt that evidence, and there was no basis to conclude that proper discovery had not been provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Further Orders Concerning Discovery Given Under a Previous Preliminary Discovery Order / Application After Discovery Had Been Provided Pursuant to Orders Made on 10 May 2023
Outcome
Application granted in part. The first order sought by VWA was made; the application was otherwise dismissed, with costs to be addressed after conferral or on the papers.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'efficacy of Discovery Orders' 'identification of Discovered Data' 'affidavit Explaining Discovery Process' 'certification That Discovery Is Complete']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'efficacy of Discovery Orders' 'identification of Discovered Data' 'affidavit Explaining Discovery Process' 'certification That Discovery Is Complete']

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; Application for Further Orders Concerning Discovery Given Under a Previous Preliminary Discovery Order / Application After Discovery Had Been Provided Pursuant to Orders Made on 10 May 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective respondents should be ordered to identify, for each Sample Location, whether data provided in response to the earlier discovery orders was from Bore Holes, Mine Water, or neither.' 'Whether the first and second prospective respondents should be required to provide an affidavit explaining the timing of the third disclosure, explaining why Veolia was not put on notice of the technical issue before the third disclosure, and swearing that all documents within the discovery orders had been disclosed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The identification order should be made because, without it, VWA could not determine which data produced in response to the earlier discovery order was Mines Data and much of the discovery would remain inutile for the purpose of deciding whether to commence proceedings; making the order was desirable to ensure the efficacy of the earlier discovery order, and the Customer adduced no evidence of prejudice. The affidavit order should not be made because unchallenged evidence explained the discovery process and timing, there was no reason to doubt that evidence, and there was no basis to conclude that proper discovery had not been provided.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part. The first order sought by VWA was made; the application was otherwise dismissed, with costs to be addressed after conferral or on the papers.

Orders

  • ['Within 14 days, Centennial Springvale Pty Limited, Boulder Mining Pty Limited, and EnergyAustralia NSW Pty Ltd identify, for each Sample Location, whether the raw data, analysed data, analytical data and processed data of samples and/or tests provided in response to the Orders is from Bore Holes, Mine Water, or...