AB v National Crime Authority [1996] FCA 533

AB v National Crime Authority [1996] FCA 533

Leave to appeal was refused because the order below was a discretionary practice decision applying the correct principle, there was evidence to support the conclusion that the requested discovery was fishing, the usefulness and discoverability of the documents could better be determined at trial, and any materials genuinely required were likely to be readily procurable at the hearing; no substantial injustice justified interlocutory appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing Particular Discovery / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['particular Discovery' 'interrogatories and Discovery' 'leave to Appeal From Discretionary Interlocutory Decision' 'national Crime Authority References and Summonses' 'use of Extrinsic Material in Construing Notices']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['particular Discovery' 'interrogatories and Discovery' 'leave to Appeal From Discretionary Interlocutory Decision' 'national Crime Authority References and Summonses' 'use of Extrinsic Material in Construing Notices']

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 Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing Particular Discovery / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Northrop J's interlocutory discretionary order refusing particular discovery." 'Whether discovery of documents preceding notices under s.13 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth) was necessary to construe the notices or determine their validity.' 'Whether discovery relating to the alleged connection between the Z investment and the C/A matter should be ordered or was merely fishing.' 'Whether the discoverability of the documents would be better determined at trial because the documents would be readily procurable if required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the order below was a discretionary practice decision applying the correct principle, there was evidence to support the conclusion that the requested discovery was fishing, the usefulness and discoverability of the documents could better be determined at trial, and any materials genuinely required were likely to be readily procurable at the hearing; no substantial injustice justified interlocutory appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal from the order of the Honourable Justice Northrop made 7 March 1995 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs (including costs reserved) of the said application."]