Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australink Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 265
The affidavit did not directly refer to documents but rather to 'complaints', a term encompassing both oral and written complaints; as such, O 15 r 10 was not engaged and the Notice to Produce was invalid.
- Parties
- Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Australialink Pty Ltd ACN 092 507 483; Second Respondent: Rachel Louise Dargie; Third Respondent: Desmond John O'Keefe
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Motion Decision
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Notice to Produce, Production of Documents, Federal Court Rules, Interpretation of References in Affidavits
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Applicant
Australialink Pty Ltd ACN 092 507 483
First Respondent
Rachel Louise Dargie
Second Respondent
Desmond John O'Keefe
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the affidavit refers to 'documents' within the meaning of O 15 r 10 of the Federal Court Rules, entitling inspection/production of such documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The affidavit did not directly refer to documents but rather to 'complaints', a term encompassing both oral and written complaints; as such, O 15 r 10 was not engaged and the Notice to Produce was invalid.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
- The applicants on the Motion pay the respondent on the Motion's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment