Air Services Australia v Transfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1395

Air Services Australia v Transfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1395

Order 15A, rule 6 was satisfied for the tender documents described in paragraph 1(a) because Airservices had an arguable section 52 claim if Transfield did not include Airservices in the tender, Airservices lacked sufficient information about the tender to decide whether to commence proceedings, no other inquiries would have adequately disclosed the relevant position, and there was reasonable cause to believe Transfield had the tender. The further documents in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), although potentially desirable or later discoverable, were not necessary for a reasonable decision whether to sue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under Order 15 A, Rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules for Discovery From a Prospective Respondent / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part.
Legal Topics
['discovery From Prospective Respondent' 'tender Negotiations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'preliminary Discovery'] ['discovery From Prospective Respondent' 'tender Negotiations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'costs']

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 Under Order 15 A, Rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules for Discovery From a Prospective Respondent / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a right to obtain relief in the Court sufficient to satisfy Order 15A, rule 6(a) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings, or whether discovery of the tender was necessary under Order 15A, rule 6(b).' 'Whether there was reasonable cause to believe that the respondent had the tender documents sought.' 'Whether discovery should extend to the documents described in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the application.' 'What costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 15A, rule 6 was satisfied for the tender documents described in paragraph 1(a) because Airservices had an arguable section 52 claim if Transfield did not include Airservices in the tender, Airservices lacked sufficient information about the tender to decide whether to commence proceedings, no other inquiries would have adequately disclosed the relevant position, and there was reasonable cause to believe Transfield had the tender. The further documents in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), although potentially desirable or later discoverable, were not necessary for a reasonable decision whether to sue.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part.

Orders

  • ['The respondent make discovery to the applicant of the document(s) described in paragraph 1(a) of the Application within 28 days of the date of the order on the terms of Order 3.' 'The application was rejected in relation to paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c).' 'The respondent pay 90% of the costs of the applicant.' 'The...