Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australink Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 265

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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.