Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish, Robert James & Ors [1981] FCA 10

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish, Robert James & Ors [1981] FCA 10

The application was refused because Order 15 rule 8 confers a discretion, and in exercising that discretion the Court gave significant weight to the parties' deliberate adoption of informal unverified discovery, the fact that the trial was due to commence on 3 March 1981, the late filing of the motion only about a month before trial, the severe burden that further verification would impose given the volume of discovery, and the insufficient, broad or uncertain evidentiary basis for the particular categories sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 1981
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Particular Discovery / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application refused; costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['particular Discovery' 'federal Court Rules Order 15 Rule 8' 'discretion to Order Discovery' 'informal Discovery' 'alleged Contraventions of S.45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'trade Practices'] ['particular Discovery' 'federal Court Rules Order 15 Rule 8' 'discretion to Order Discovery' 'informal Discovery' 'alleged Contraventions of S.45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974']

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

Notice of Motion for Particular Discovery / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has a discretion under Order 15 rule 8 when grounds for particular discovery are established.' 'Whether orders should be made requiring the relevant respondents to file affidavits about specified documents or classes of documents.' "Whether the parties' adoption of informal discovery, the proximity of trial, and the burden of verification justified refusing the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because Order 15 rule 8 confers a discretion, and in exercising that discretion the Court gave significant weight to the parties' deliberate adoption of informal unverified discovery, the fact that the trial was due to commence on 3 March 1981, the late filing of the motion only about a month before trial, the severe burden that further verification would impose given the volume of discovery, and the insufficient, broad or uncertain evidentiary basis for the particular categories sought.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.']