Gibson v Swan Hardware & Staff Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 387
The requested categories were directly relevant to Swan Hardware's pleaded issue that Shinda acted as Panyu's agent and that Shinda's Revesby premises were Panyu's place of business in Australia. Shinda's proposed date limitation was inappropriate because Swan Hardware did not know when the negotiations occurred and...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 April 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Alleged Loss and Damage From Ruptured Pex Plus Pipe and Claims Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondent's Interlocutory Application Filed 7 April 2015 for Non Party Discovery Under R 20.23(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
- Outcome
- Application granted; non-party discovery orders made in the terms proposed by Swan Hardware.
- Legal Topics
- ['non Party Discovery' 'discovery of Documents' 'trade Practices Act Deemed Manufacturer Provisions' 'imported Goods' 'place of Business in Australia' 'agency']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in a Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Alleged Loss and Damage From Ruptured Pex Plus Pipe and Claims Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondent's Interlocutory Application Filed 7 April 2015 for Non Party Discovery Under R 20.23(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Shinda International Pty Ltd should be ordered under r 20.23(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to make discovery of documents directly relevant to issues raised on the pleadings.' 'Whether the discovery categories should be limited to documents dated between January 2006 and April 2008 and to Pex pipe products.']
Ratio Decidendi
The requested categories were directly relevant to Swan Hardware's pleaded issue that Shinda acted as Panyu's agent and that Shinda's Revesby premises were Panyu's place of business in Australia. Shinda's proposed date limitation was inappropriate because Swan Hardware did not know when the negotiations occurred and there was some evidence they may have occurred before January 2006. The proposed product limitation was also inappropriate because whether Shinda acted as Panyu's agent and whether its office was Panyu's Australian place of business was likely to be determined by reference to all Panyu products rather than Pex Plus Pipes alone. Shinda provided no evidence or submissions that...
Court Disposition
Application granted; non-party discovery orders made in the terms proposed by Swan Hardware.
Orders
- ['Pursuant to r 20.23(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Shinda International Pty Limited ACN 074 452 207 by its proper officer make discovery of the documents and categories of documents listed in Annexure A to the orders.' "Shinda is to file a list of documents in accordance with r 20.17 by 14 May 2015 and...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment