Allstate Life Insuarance & Ors v ANZ Banking Group & Ors (No 24) [1996] FCA 29

Allstate Life Insuarance & Ors v ANZ Banking Group & Ors (No 24) [1996] FCA 29

Skadden established on the evidence that there was a triable issue that it would be vexatious or oppressive for the taking of Mr Zimet's deposition to proceed on 8 February 1996, and there appeared to be no irreversible damage from some delay. The balance of convenience therefore warranted restraining the applicants until further order so the matter could be properly explored.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Motion for Interlocutory Relief Restraining the Taking of an Oral Deposition
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted until further order; directions made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'oral Deposition' 'foreign Discovery' '28 USC § 1782' 'vexation and Oppression' 'balance of Convenience' 'abuse of Process']
['practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'oral Deposition' 'foreign Discovery' '28 USC § 1782' 'vexation and Oppression' 'balance of Convenience' 'abuse of Process']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Motion for Interlocutory Relief Restraining the Taking of an Oral Deposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be restrained until further order from taking, causing to be taken, or participating in the taking of any oral deposition from Millard Zimet pursuant to the order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dated 24 January 1996.' "Whether Skadden had shown a triable issue that it would be vexatious or oppressive for the taking of Mr Zimet's deposition to proceed on 8 February 1996." 'Whether the balance of convenience warranted some delay in the taking of the oral testimony or statement of Mr Zimet.' "Whether Skadden's motion should be seen as an abuse of the process of the Court." 'The relationship between the letter of request procedure and the taking of oral depositions of potential witnesses pursuant to unilateral ex parte applications made to foreign courts by a party to these proceedings.' 'Whether the procedure under 28 USC § 1782 was available where it was common ground that the statement or testimony of Mr Zimet would not be admissible in these proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Skadden established on the evidence that there was a triable issue that it would be vexatious or oppressive for the taking of Mr Zimet's deposition to proceed on 8 February 1996, and there appeared to be no irreversible damage from some delay. The balance of convenience therefore warranted restraining the applicants until further order so the matter could be properly explored.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted until further order; directions made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Upon Skadden through its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the applicants be restrained until further order from taking or causing to be taken or participating in the taking of any oral deposition from Millard Zimet pursuant to the order dated 24 January 1996 made by the United States District...