Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 2) [2022] FCA 674

Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc (No 2) [2022] FCA 674

The proposed interlocutory application was unsupported by affidavit or other evidence, sought discovery at the appellate leave stage, and the documents sought did not appear relevant to or admissible on the pending leave to appeal application. Permitting the application to be filed would not facilitate the just resolution of the proceedings as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible or promote the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Two Interlocutory Decisions; Proposed Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Registrar directed to refuse to accept the applicant's interlocutory application for filing.
Legal Topics
['lodgement for Filing of Interlocutory Application' 'specific Discovery' 'leave to Appeal' 'overarching Purpose' 'refusal to Accept for Filing']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['lodgement for Filing of Interlocutory Application' 'specific Discovery' 'leave to Appeal' 'overarching Purpose' 'refusal to Accept for Filing']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Two Interlocutory Decisions; Proposed Interlocutory Application for Specific Discovery / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's interlocutory application seeking specific discovery from the fourth respondent should be accepted for filing in leave to appeal proceedings." 'Whether the proposed discovery application would facilitate the just resolution of the proceedings as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed interlocutory application was unsupported by affidavit or other evidence, sought discovery at the appellate leave stage, and the documents sought did not appear relevant to or admissible on the pending leave to appeal application. Permitting the application to be filed would not facilitate the just resolution of the proceedings as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible or promote the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Registrar directed to refuse to accept the applicant's interlocutory application for filing.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant's interlocutory application dated 1 June 2022 seeking orders for discovery pursuant to r 20.13 of Rules."]