Century v THLD [2000] NSWSC 327

Century v THLD [2000] NSWSC 327

The plaintiff was entitled to discovery where the documents sought related to pleaded issues or might lead to a permissible chain of inquiry advancing its case or damaging the defendants' case. The 10 March 2000 consent order did not amount to a clear abandonment of the plaintiff's right to seek wider discovery in categories 8, 9 and 10. Documents concerning the USA Consent Decree and explanted products were discoverable, subject to stated limitations and any particular objections. United States depositions were discoverable because they might provide matters the plaintiff could legitimately follow up, but submissions in those proceedings were not discoverable because they merely stated...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Proceeding Concerning Discovery / Notices of Motion, With Part of the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Heard
Outcome
The Court stated its views on the scope of discovery and indicated that the parties proposed to act conformably with those views; formal orders could be made if necessary. The balance of the plaintiff's Notice of Motion and the defendants' Notices of Motion were stood over to 19 May 2000, with costs to be considered...
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'categories of Documents' 'relevance' 'chain of Inquiry' 'consent Decree' 'depositions']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Litigation'] ['discovery' 'categories of Documents' 'relevance' 'chain of Inquiry' 'consent Decree' 'depositions']

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

Commercial List Proceeding Concerning Discovery / Notices of Motion, With Part of the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff was entitled to discovery of documents in categories 8, 9 and 10 despite the defendants' contention that earlier consent orders confined discovery to narrower descriptions." 'Whether documents relating to the USA Consent Decree in category 12 were discoverable.' 'Whether documents relating to explanted Telectronics brand heart pacemaker products in category 13 were discoverable.' 'Whether depositions and submissions from United States class proceedings were discoverable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to discovery where the documents sought related to pleaded issues or might lead to a permissible chain of inquiry advancing its case or damaging the defendants' case. The 10 March 2000 consent order did not amount to a clear abandonment of the plaintiff's right to seek wider discovery in categories 8, 9 and 10. Documents concerning the USA Consent Decree and explanted products were discoverable, subject to stated limitations and any particular objections. United States depositions were discoverable because they might provide matters the plaintiff could legitimately follow up, but submissions in those proceedings were not discoverable because they merely stated...

Court Disposition

The Court stated its views on the scope of discovery and indicated that the parties proposed to act conformably with those views; formal orders could be made if necessary. The balance of the plaintiff's Notice of Motion and the defendants' Notices of Motion were stood over to 19 May 2000, with costs to be considered...

Orders

  • ['Discovery of category 15 documents was agreed to be given.' 'Discovery of category 19 documents was to be given in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) to (k), limited to documents meeting the opening words; sub-paragraphs (l) and (m) were not pressed.' 'Discovery of category 1 documents was to be given.' 'The...