Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 290

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 290

Whether or not the second respondent was at law a director of the first respondent, his answers to the interrogatories were only partial if given as director, and if given in his own right could not satisfy the first respondent's obligation. His discovery also could not stand as the first respondent's discovery because he did not claim authority to speak for the first respondent and had not verified discovery as a member or officer, and because the first respondent's documents were not necessarily the same as those in his possession, custody or power. The first respondent was therefore ordered to answer interrogatories and provide discovery within 21 days, with default judgment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Discovery and Interrogatories in Proceedings Seeking Declarations, Orders and Injunctive Relief / Decision on the Applicant's Notice of Motion Dated 17 August 2001
Outcome
The applicant's notice of motion was granted in substance, with orders requiring the first respondent to answer interrogatories and provide discovery, requiring the second respondent to produce documents for inspection subject to privilege, and awarding costs to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'interrogatories' 'default Judgment' 'authority of Company Officer to Answer on Behalf of Company' 'privilege']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['discovery' 'interrogatories' 'default Judgment' 'authority of Company Officer to Answer on Behalf of Company' 'privilege']

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 Concerning Discovery and Interrogatories in Proceedings Seeking Declarations, Orders and Injunctive Relief / Decision on the Applicant's Notice of Motion Dated 17 August 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second respondent's purported answers to interrogatories administered to the first respondent satisfied the first respondent's obligations." "Whether the second respondent's discovery could stand as the discovery of the first respondent in light of the alternative formulation of earlier discovery orders." 'Whether the second respondent should produce documents over which privilege was claimed to the Court for inspection in a sealed envelope.']

Ratio Decidendi

Whether or not the second respondent was at law a director of the first respondent, his answers to the interrogatories were only partial if given as director, and if given in his own right could not satisfy the first respondent's obligation. His discovery also could not stand as the first respondent's discovery because he did not claim authority to speak for the first respondent and had not verified discovery as a member or officer, and because the first respondent's documents were not necessarily the same as those in his possession, custody or power. The first respondent was therefore ordered to answer interrogatories and provide discovery within 21 days, with default judgment...

Court Disposition

The applicant's notice of motion was granted in substance, with orders requiring the first respondent to answer interrogatories and provide discovery, requiring the second respondent to produce documents for inspection subject to privilege, and awarding costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent provide answers to the applicant's notice to answer interrogatories within 21 days of the making of this order, failing which default judgment be entered for the applicant against the first respondent pursuant to Order 16 rule 9(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules." 'The first respondent provide...