Forty Two International Pty Limited v Barnes (No 3) [2011] FCA 427

Forty Two International Pty Limited v Barnes (No 3) [2011] FCA 427

The Court determined that, as applicants were wholly successful on their motion, respondents should pay their costs. For the respondents’ partially successful motion, there should be no order as to costs. Discovery orders were to be limited to categories in dispute at the time of the hearing, and the specific scope requested by each side.

Parties
First Applicant: FORTY TWO INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED ACN 095 622 889; Second Applicant: BLUEFREEWAY LIMITED ACN 122 262 819; Third Applicant: THE GANG OF 4 PTY LIMITED ACN 095 624 678; First Respondent: KIM BARNES; Second Respondent: LEE HAWKSLEY
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Discovery and Costs Orders
Outcome
Discovery orders made as set out, costs apportioned according to success, respondents to pay applicants’ costs of their motion, no order as to costs on respondents’ motion.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Costs
Civil Procedure Discovery Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FORTY TWO INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED ACN 095 622 889

First Applicant

BLUEFREEWAY LIMITED ACN 122 262 819

Second Applicant

THE GANG OF 4 PTY LIMITED ACN 095 624 678

Third Applicant

KIM BARNES

First Respondent

LEE HAWKSLEY

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Discovery and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What discovery each party should give in respect of specific categories of documents.
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned as between the parties on the two interlocutory motions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that, as applicants were wholly successful on their motion, respondents should pay their costs. For the respondents’ partially successful motion, there should be no order as to costs. Discovery orders were to be limited to categories in dispute at the time of the hearing, and the specific scope requested by each side.

Court Disposition

Discovery orders made as set out, costs apportioned according to success, respondents to pay applicants’ costs of their motion, no order as to costs on respondents’ motion.

Orders

  • Each respondent provide additional discovery in accordance with O 15 r 6 (bank statements and relevant documents for the period specified).
  • Each applicant provide additional discovery (specific board meeting documents referring to negotiations with Mr Dhillon of CMUK).