Casella Wines Pty Limited v Casa Barzana Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1585

Casella Wines Pty Limited v Casa Barzana Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1585

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice to Produce were bad in their formulation because they sought documents qualified by the word "evidencing" and described the documents sought in a loose way. The Court therefore set aside the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 in respect of the requirements imposed by paragraphs 1 and 2, while noting that differently formulated requests indicated in oral submissions might have been allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Complex Copyright Matter / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside a Notice to Produce Before Trial
Outcome
The applicant's motion was granted in part; paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 were set aside, and costs in the motion were made costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['notice to Produce' 'subpoena Like Production' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'pre Trial Document Production' 'oppression Objection']
['copyright' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['notice to Produce' 'subpoena Like Production' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'pre Trial Document Production' 'oppression Objection']

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

Complex Copyright Matter / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside a Notice to Produce Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 should be set aside in respect of paragraphs 1 and 2.' 'Whether the first two categories of documents in the Notice to Produce were validly formulated.' 'Whether relevance is the yardstick for judging a valid Notice to Produce.' 'Whether claims of legal professional privilege or oppression could justify non-production.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice to Produce were bad in their formulation because they sought documents qualified by the word "evidencing" and described the documents sought in a loose way. The Court therefore set aside the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 in respect of the requirements imposed by paragraphs 1 and 2, while noting that differently formulated requests indicated in oral submissions might have been allowed.

Court Disposition

The applicant's motion was granted in part; paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 were set aside, and costs in the motion were made costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Grants leave to the applicant to file in Court a Notice of Motion dated 29 August 2007.' 'Grants leave to the applicant to file in Court an affidavit of Andrew Bruce Thorpe sworn 29 August 2007.' 'Orders that the Notice to Produce dated 28 August 2007 be set aside in respect of the requirements imposed by...