In the matter of Flow Tech Australia Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1226

In the matter of Flow Tech Australia Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1226

The plaintiff should have inspection of specified financial documents relating to the relevant period, but requests for earlier years or for undifferentiated production of all company books are unwarranted and would be oppressive. Confidentiality was not substantiated. The court orders targeted production as appropriate to the current issues.

Parties
Plaintiff: David McGill; First Defendant: Flow Tech Australia Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Christopher Peter Jaques; Third Defendant: Michael Shaun Hockley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice to Produce and Interlocutory Process
Outcome
Plaintiff's interlocutory application granted in part and dismissed in part; defendants' motion granted; each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Notice to Produce, Production of Documents, Confidentiality in Discovery, Oppression Remedy, Inspection of Company Books
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Notice to Produce Production of Documents Confidentiality in Discovery Oppression Remedy Inspection of Company Books

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David McGill

Plaintiff

Flow Tech Australia Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Christopher Peter Jaques

Second Defendant

Michael Shaun Hockley

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice to Produce and Interlocutory Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether production of certain documents pursuant to notice to produce was required or oppressive
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure should be ordered under Civil Procedure Act or Corporations Act
  3. 3 Whether application for inspection of company books under s 1303 Corporations Act should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff should have inspection of specified financial documents relating to the relevant period, but requests for earlier years or for undifferentiated production of all company books are unwarranted and would be oppressive. Confidentiality was not substantiated. The court orders targeted production as appropriate to the current issues.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's interlocutory application granted in part and dismissed in part; defendants' motion granted; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Order that the first defendant need not produce for inspection the documents referred to in the plaintiff's Notice to Produce of 17 May 2013.
  • Order that defendants produce for inspection by the plaintiff and his duly authorised agents: (a) by noon on 23 July 2013, MYOB ledger, accounts journals, profit & loss accounts, and cash flow statements for the period 1 July 2011 to date in respect of the first defendant; (b) by noon 24 July 2013: (i) originals or...