Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1577

Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1577

The documents sought by the respondents in their notices to produce were relevant to the financial position of the corporate applicant and to the issues for determination on the security for costs application. The notices to produce did not amount to a fishing expedition or an abuse of process; they were designed to obtain evidence in support of the respondents' case.

Parties
Applicant: Peter G Bailey; Applicant: Jillian L Bull; Applicant: Martin J Bull; Applicant: Maureen G Dargan; Applicant: Mark Ghirxi; Applicant: Michael C Graf; Applicant: Terry Raymond Higgins; Applicant: L & K Public Relations & Management Consultants Pty Ltd; Applicant: John L Leeds; Applicant: Carolyn M Leeds; Applicant: John Muscat; Applicant: Pantera Nominees Pty Ltd; Applicant: Polycoat Pty Ltd; Applicant: Leo Puratic; Applicant: Roy Stanley Rosenberg; Applicant: John Seery; Applicant: Nikola Stancic; Applicant: Ann Stancic; Applicant: Raymond J Thomson; Applicant: Alan Thomas; Applicant: Peter Wallis; Applicant: Equuscorp Pty Limited; First Respondent: Beagle Management Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: B M Limited; Third Respondent: Beagle Holdings Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: John Carlton Young; Fifth Respondent: Helen Margaret Sewell; Sixth Respondent: Perpetual Trustees WA Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Applications for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Notice to Produce and Security for Costs
Outcome
Applicants' motion to strike out notices to produce dismissed; certain proceedings adjourned; costs awarded against applicants in relation to part of the notice of motion; other costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Notices to Produce, Abuse of Process, Fishing Expedition, Relevance of Evidence
Practice and Procedure Security for Costs Notices to Produce Abuse of Process Fishing Expedition Relevance of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter G Bailey

Applicant

Jillian L Bull

Applicant

Martin J Bull

Applicant

Maureen G Dargan

Applicant

Mark Ghirxi

Applicant

Michael C Graf

Applicant

Terry Raymond Higgins

Applicant

L & K Public Relations & Management Consultants Pty Ltd

Applicant

John L Leeds

Applicant

Carolyn M Leeds

Applicant

John Muscat

Applicant

Pantera Nominees Pty Ltd

Applicant

Polycoat Pty Ltd

Applicant

Leo Puratic

Applicant

Roy Stanley Rosenberg

Applicant

John Seery

Applicant

Nikola Stancic

Applicant

Ann Stancic

Applicant

Raymond J Thomson

Applicant

Alan Thomas

Applicant

Peter Wallis

Applicant

Equuscorp Pty Limited

Applicant

Beagle Management Pty Ltd

First Respondent

B M Limited

Second Respondent

Beagle Holdings Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

John Carlton Young

Fourth Respondent

Helen Margaret Sewell

Fifth Respondent

Perpetual Trustees WA Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Notice to Produce and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices to produce served in support of security for costs applications are fishing expeditions or abusive of process
  2. 2 Whether the information sought in the notices to produce is relevant to the financial position of the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The documents sought by the respondents in their notices to produce were relevant to the financial position of the corporate applicant and to the issues for determination on the security for costs application. The notices to produce did not amount to a fishing expedition or an abuse of process; they were designed to obtain evidence in support of the respondents' case.

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion to strike out notices to produce dismissed; certain proceedings adjourned; costs awarded against applicants in relation to part of the notice of motion; other costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applications made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants' notice of motion filed on 20 October 2000 be dismissed.
  • The application made in paragraph 4 of the said notice of motion be adjourned sine die.