Citation Resources Ltd v Landau [2016] FCA 1114

Citation Resources Ltd v Landau [2016] FCA 1114

Given the real and appreciable risk that discovery would increase Mr Landau's jeopardy in ongoing criminal investigations, standard discovery was refused. However, the prospect of criminal proceedings was not sufficiently concrete ('on the cards') to justify a stay of civil proceedings at this juncture. Both applications (for discovery and for a stay) were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (discovery and Stay)
Outcome
Both the plaintiff's application for discovery and the defendant's application for a stay were dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
["directors' Duties" 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'discovery' 'application for Stay of Proceedings']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ["directors' Duties" 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'discovery' 'application for Stay of Proceedings']

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

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (discovery and Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether discovery should be ordered where privilege against self-incrimination is claimed due to ongoing ASIC investigation' 'Whether civil proceedings should be stayed due to the prospect of criminal prosecution related to the same subject matter']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the real and appreciable risk that discovery would increase Mr Landau's jeopardy in ongoing criminal investigations, standard discovery was refused. However, the prospect of criminal proceedings was not sufficiently concrete ('on the cards') to justify a stay of civil proceedings at this juncture. Both applications (for discovery and for a stay) were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both the plaintiff's application for discovery and the defendant's application for a stay were dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application for discovery filed 27 June 2016 is dismissed." "The defendant's application for a stay of proceedings filed 6 July 2016 is dismissed." 'There be no order as to costs.']