Humphries v SAS Signage Accessories Supplier Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1238

Humphries v SAS Signage Accessories Supplier Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1238

The applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the respondent's customers' purchase of the One Way Vision product and their screen-printing activities, and failed to show that the non-parties were probably in possession of documents relevant and necessary to the determination of the proceedings. The telephone evidence relied on to add further parties was inadmissible for want of identification of its source under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and the application amounted to a fishing expedition rather than a proper basis for exceptional third-party discovery.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Discovery of Documents From Non Parties / Notice of Motion for Third Party Discovery and Application for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Motion
Outcome
The Notice of Motion and the application for leave to file an Amended Notice of Motion were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['discovery of Documents' 'third Party Discovery' 'interlocutory Evidence' 'hearsay in Interlocutory Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['discovery of Documents' 'third Party Discovery' 'interlocutory Evidence' 'hearsay in Interlocutory Proceedings']

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

Practice and Procedure Discovery of Documents From Non Parties / Notice of Motion for Third Party Discovery and Application for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders should be made under O 15A r 8 of the Federal Court Rules for discovery from non-parties to the proceedings.' 'Whether the applicants should have leave to file an Amended Notice of Motion adding further non-parties.' 'Whether the evidence relied on by the applicants, including telephone survey evidence, was admissible and sufficient to justify third-party discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the respondent's customers' purchase of the One Way Vision product and their screen-printing activities, and failed to show that the non-parties were probably in possession of documents relevant and necessary to the determination of the proceedings. The telephone evidence relied on to add further parties was inadmissible for want of identification of its source under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and the application amounted to a fishing expedition rather than a proper basis for exceptional third-party discovery.

Court Disposition

The Notice of Motion and the application for leave to file an Amended Notice of Motion were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed by the applicants on 2 September 2009 be dismissed.' 'The application for leave to file an Amended Notice of Motion be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs of the Notice of Motion hearing on 6 October 2009; other than those costs, the applicant on the Motion is to pay the costs of...