BT (Australasia) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor [1996] FCA 352

BT (Australasia) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor [1996] FCA 352

The proper approach to the interlocutory disputes concerning discovery was to order Telstra to provide discovery limited by the schedules agreed and as further refined by the Court’s rulings on specific disputed categories, so as to balance the parties’ interests, limit oppressive or irrelevant requests, and ensure discovery was not used for mere 'fishing'. Costs are to be costs in the cause, reflecting partial success and compromise on both sides.

Parties
Applicant: BT Australasia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: State of New South Wales; Second Respondent: Telstra Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Orders and Reasons on Interlocutory Discovery Motions
Outcome
Orders made refining the scope and procedure of discovery between applicant and second respondent; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Interlocutory Procedure, Trade Practices
Civil Procedure Discovery Interlocutory Procedure Trade Practices

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BT Australasia Pty Ltd

Applicant

State of New South Wales

First Respondent

Telstra Corporation Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Orders and Reasons on Interlocutory Discovery Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of discovery for market and competition issues
  2. 2 Whether requests for discovery amount to 'fishing expeditions'
  3. 3 Formulation of categories of discoverable documents

Ratio Decidendi

The proper approach to the interlocutory disputes concerning discovery was to order Telstra to provide discovery limited by the schedules agreed and as further refined by the Court’s rulings on specific disputed categories, so as to balance the parties’ interests, limit oppressive or irrelevant requests, and ensure discovery was not used for mere 'fishing'. Costs are to be costs in the cause, reflecting partial success and compromise on both sides.

Court Disposition

Orders made refining the scope and procedure of discovery between applicant and second respondent; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Discovery to be given by Telstra in accordance with the amended schedules as agreed and ruled on by the Court.
  • Telstra to provide written statements for excluded services (except six specified services) with information as specified, omitting the requirement to include information under sub-paragraph (iv).