Auspine Ltd v H S Lawrence & Sons Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1749

Auspine Ltd v H S Lawrence & Sons Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1749

Orders were made requiring Auspine to produce and identify certain categories of documents for inspection and serve verified lists where warranted, but affidavit of discovery was generally accepted as conclusive. Leave to cross-examine Mr McGlone was refused. Application for summary judgment by Auspine was not granted. Respondents were ordered to file all witness statements and expert reports by specified date, with certificate by a senior executive officer. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Parties
Applicant: Auspine Limited; First Respondent: H S Lawrence & Sons Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Email Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion Relating to Discovery, Production, Summary Judgment and Cross Examination
Outcome
Orders made on discovery, production, summary judgment and cross-examination applications; partial success for both parties; summary judgment refused; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Particular Discovery, Production of Documents, Summary Judgment, Affidavit Evidence, Cross Examination on Affidavit
Civil Procedure Discovery Particular Discovery Production of Documents Summary Judgment Affidavit Evidence Cross Examination on Affidavit

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auspine Limited

Applicant

H S Lawrence & Sons Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Email Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion Relating to Discovery, Production, Summary Judgment and Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Auspine's discovery was adequate
  2. 2 Whether further and better particular discovery and production of documents should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine on affidavits of discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Orders were made requiring Auspine to produce and identify certain categories of documents for inspection and serve verified lists where warranted, but affidavit of discovery was generally accepted as conclusive. Leave to cross-examine Mr McGlone was refused. Application for summary judgment by Auspine was not granted. Respondents were ordered to file all witness statements and expert reports by specified date, with certificate by a senior executive officer. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Orders made on discovery, production, summary judgment and cross-examination applications; partial success for both parties; summary judgment refused; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • Auspine to produce for inspection and identify in its lists those documents in categories specified in the notice of motion (including working papers, notes, drafts, handwritten notes, electronic records, etc.), within twenty-eight days.
  • Verified lists to be served and affidavits explaining loss or destruction of requested documents to be filed where appropriate.