Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1144
The applicant was not permitted to widen its particulars by relying on customer incidents referred to for the first time in statements served in 2001 because there could not be a fair trial of incidents first raised in 2001 concerning events many years earlier, the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the widening would divert the respondents' attention and resources, and it would tend to imperil the proposed 2002 trial. Other statement objections were generally left to be determined at trial unless a real and serious problem was identified. Discovery was confined in principle to macro-level records essential or relevant to the applicant's damages report, with no...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 August 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Motions in Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory Hearing on Amended Notices of Motion; Proceeding Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order
- Outcome
- Proceeding stood over for short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons; leave to widen particulars by reference to customer incidents first referred to in 2001 was refused in substance; discovery and expert evidence directions were indicated in principle.
- Legal Topics
- ['interlocutory Applications' 'pleadings and Particulars' 'leave to Rely on Statements' 'customer Incidents' 'discovery Including Electronic Records' 'expert Evidence on Damages' 'case Management']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motions in Federal Court Proceeding / Interlocutory Hearing on Amended Notices of Motion; Proceeding Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to widen its particulars by relying on customer incidents first referred to in statements served in 2001.' 'Whether statements filed after 3 October 1997 could be relied upon under the 1997 consent orders or required leave.' "What discovery should be ordered for the applicant's damages evidence, including discovery of macro-level records and electronic records." 'What timetable should apply for expert evidence on assessment of damages.']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant was not permitted to widen its particulars by relying on customer incidents referred to for the first time in statements served in 2001 because there could not be a fair trial of incidents first raised in 2001 concerning events many years earlier, the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the widening would divert the respondents' attention and resources, and it would tend to imperil the proposed 2002 trial. Other statement objections were generally left to be determined at trial unless a real and serious problem was identified. Discovery was confined in principle to macro-level records essential or relevant to the applicant's damages report, with no...
Court Disposition
Proceeding stood over for short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons; leave to widen particulars by reference to customer incidents first referred to in 2001 was refused in substance; discovery and expert evidence directions were indicated in principle.
Orders
- ['The proceeding be stood over to enable the parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons for judgment.' "Discovery on an urgent basis should be given of all records at the macro level, if any, essential for completion of the applicant's expert report as to damages on the primary basis...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment