Carbone v James McConvill and Associates Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1594

Carbone v James McConvill and Associates Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1594

Respondents failed to comply with discovery obligations as required by self-executing orders; list of documents did not comply with rule 20.17; court satisfied there was non-compliance justifying summary judgment in applicant's favour per pre-existing order.

Parties
Applicant: Joseph Carbone; First Respondent: James McConvill and Associates Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: James McConvill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Summary Judgment Due to Alleged Default of Self Executing Discovery Orders
Outcome
Applicant's interlocutory application granted; summary judgment entered against respondents.
Legal Topics
Judgments and Orders, Self Executing Orders, Discovery Compliance, Summary Judgment, Electronic Filing and Service
Practice and Procedure Employment & Industrial Relations Judgments and Orders Self Executing Orders Discovery Compliance Summary Judgment Electronic Filing and Service

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Carbone

Applicant

James McConvill and Associates Pty Ltd

First Respondent

James McConvill

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Summary Judgment Due to Alleged Default of Self Executing Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents were in default of self-executing orders for discovery and amended defence
  2. 2 Whether respondents' filed and served documents substantially complied with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.21, 2.23, 2.25, 2.27, 20.17
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be entered in default

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents failed to comply with discovery obligations as required by self-executing orders; list of documents did not comply with rule 20.17; court satisfied there was non-compliance justifying summary judgment in applicant's favour per pre-existing order.

Court Disposition

Applicant's interlocutory application granted; summary judgment entered against respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents' further amended defence be struck out.
  • Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant.