Orientile Pty Ltd v Salitrosa Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1154

Orientile Pty Ltd v Salitrosa Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1154

Except for a modified mutual production order for high resolution images and tile samples, the proposed discovery should not be ordered before lay evidence because the categories were broad, the respondents' evidence was likely to refine the issues, Orientile had not shown that the documents or information were required for its lay evidence, and postponement would better serve the efficient conduct of the proceeding. Category 6 was in substance an interrogatory, but no application for leave under r 21.01 had been made and Orientile had not shown that such information should be provided at that stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Standard Discovery in a Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Before Lay Evidence Filed
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application was dismissed, with a limited mutual discovery order made in respect of a modified category 5.
Legal Topics
['non Standard Discovery' 'discovery by Categories' 'timing of Discovery' 'redfern Schedule' 'interrogatories' 'overarching Purpose']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'copyright'] ['non Standard Discovery' 'discovery by Categories' 'timing of Discovery' 'redfern Schedule' 'interrogatories' 'overarching Purpose']

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 Non Standard Discovery in a Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application Before Lay Evidence Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether discovery by categories should be ordered under r 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) before lay evidence is filed.' 'Whether the proposed discovery categories were consistent with the efficient conduct of the proceeding and the overarching purpose.' 'Whether category 6 was in substance an interrogatory requiring leave under r 21.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether a limited mutual production order should be made for high resolution images of the applicant's pleaded images and samples of the respondents' tiles."]

Ratio Decidendi

Except for a modified mutual production order for high resolution images and tile samples, the proposed discovery should not be ordered before lay evidence because the categories were broad, the respondents' evidence was likely to refine the issues, Orientile had not shown that the documents or information were required for its lay evidence, and postponement would better serve the efficient conduct of the proceeding. Category 6 was in substance an interrogatory, but no application for leave under r 21.01 had been made and Orientile had not shown that such information should be provided at that stage.

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application was dismissed, with a limited mutual discovery order made in respect of a modified category 5.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application filed on 3 August 2021 be dismissed." 'Pursuant to r 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant produce to the respondents high resolution versions, in native format, of each of the images incorporated in Schedules A to C of the amended statement of claim.'...