Alliance Craton Explorer Pty Ltd v Quasar Resources Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 507

Alliance Craton Explorer Pty Ltd v Quasar Resources Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 507

Although the Court had power to recall and vary the unentered Order 5, the order was not ambiguous or erroneous in the respects alleged and reflected the Court's deliberate intention to make confined particular discovery orders rather than a general discovery order. The matters identified by Alliance either were clear on the terms of the order, had been deliberately chosen, or did not warrant further intervention, so the application to recall and vary Order 5 was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Recall and Vary an Order for Particular Discovery / Application Refused
Outcome
Application refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['variation of Orders' 'orders Not Formally Entered' 'particular Discovery' 'interrogatories' 'interests of Justice' 'ambiguity or Error in Orders']
['practice and Procedure'] ['variation of Orders' 'orders Not Formally Entered' 'particular Discovery' 'interrogatories' 'interests of Justice' 'ambiguity or Error in Orders']

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 to Recall and Vary an Order for Particular Discovery / Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 5 of the order for particular discovery made on 26 March 2012 should be recalled and varied before formal entry.' 'Whether Order 5 was doubtful, ambiguous, or did not reflect the intention of the Court.' 'Whether the date 30 August 2004, the expression "adjacent" tenements, the term "data", and the scope of internal communications or drilling program documents warranted variation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court had power to recall and vary the unentered Order 5, the order was not ambiguous or erroneous in the respects alleged and reflected the Court's deliberate intention to make confined particular discovery orders rather than a general discovery order. The matters identified by Alliance either were clear on the terms of the order, had been deliberately chosen, or did not warrant further intervention, so the application to recall and vary Order 5 was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application to recall and vary Order 5 of the Order for particular discovery made on 26 March 2012 is refused.' 'The applicant pay to the respondents their costs of the application.']