Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 358

Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Limited [2005] FCA 358

The discovery motion was allowed only in part because some requested categories were sufficiently connected to the pleaded issues about the Dream Home format and related threats, while others were refused as too broad, uncertain, insufficiently relevant, speculative, concerned with documents already provided to Nine, outside Ninox's control, or privileged. The Court also required a formal evidentiary response that the first and third respondents had no documents in Categories 10 and 14 and made no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Discovery Motion / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Particulars and Verified Discovery of Specific Categories of Documents
Outcome
Notice of Motion for discovery allowed in part and otherwise disallowed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['verified Discovery' 'relevance of Discovery Categories' 'breadth and Uncertainty of Discovery Categories' 'privilege' 'copyright Threats Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'copyright'] ['verified Discovery' 'relevance of Discovery Categories' 'breadth and Uncertainty of Discovery Categories' 'privilege' 'copyright Threats Under S 202 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']

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; Discovery Motion / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking Particulars and Verified Discovery of Specific Categories of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and third respondents should give verified discovery of specific categories of documents sought by the applicants.' 'Whether particular categories of documents were sufficiently relevant to the issues raised on the pleadings.' 'Whether particular categories were too broad, general, uncertain or speculative to warrant discovery.' 'Whether the first and third respondents should provide evidence that they had no documents falling within Categories 10 and 14.' 'Whether privilege had been waived over advice and recommendations provided by Stuart Littlemore, QC.']

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery motion was allowed only in part because some requested categories were sufficiently connected to the pleaded issues about the Dream Home format and related threats, while others were refused as too broad, uncertain, insufficiently relevant, speculative, concerned with documents already provided to Nine, outside Ninox's control, or privileged. The Court also required a formal evidentiary response that the first and third respondents had no documents in Categories 10 and 14 and made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion for discovery allowed in part and otherwise disallowed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The following categories of documents be allowed: 8, 11, 12, 22 and 25.' 'The following categories of documents be disallowed: 6, 12, 13, 16, 21 and 26.' 'The First and Third Respondents file and serve evidence that they do not have any documents falling within Categories 10 and 14.' 'The parties bring in Short...