P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Limited (No 3) [2010] FCA 246

P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Limited (No 3) [2010] FCA 246

The Court considered that a separate order requiring discovery of all documents on which the respondents intended to rely at trial was not presently necessary because such documents would likely be covered by the order for discovery of documents with significant probative value. The Court also accepted, for the moment, the respondents' proposed exclusion of construction case documents, leaving the scope of any deferred issues and any further discovery to be addressed later.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Representative Proceeding / Further Orders Following Reasons on the Applicants' Discovery Motion and Pre Trial Case Management
Outcome
Orders made; respondents' objections to the proposed discovery orders were accepted in part; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'privilege Claims' 'case Management' 'opt Out Procedure' 'litigation Funding Agreements']
['civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['discovery' 'privilege Claims' 'case Management' 'opt Out Procedure' 'litigation Funding Agreements']

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

Federal Court Representative Proceeding / Further Orders Following Reasons on the Applicants' Discovery Motion and Pre Trial Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should be required to discover all documents upon which they intend to rely at trial.' "Whether discovery of documents with significant probative value should exclude documents relating to the 'construction case'."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court considered that a separate order requiring discovery of all documents on which the respondents intended to rely at trial was not presently necessary because such documents would likely be covered by the order for discovery of documents with significant probative value. The Court also accepted, for the moment, the respondents' proposed exclusion of construction case documents, leaving the scope of any deferred issues and any further discovery to be addressed later.

Court Disposition

Orders made; respondents' objections to the proposed discovery orders were accepted in part; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The Applicants have leave to file an Amended Application and Amended Case Summary in the form exhibited to the affidavit of David Niven dated 21 January 2010 on or before 8 March 2010.' 'The Respondents file and serve an affidavit on or before 11 March 2010 setting out the basis of any claim for privilege in...