The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1656

The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1656

Discovery of clinical data was refused for being overreaching and oppressive. Dr Gray's privilege claim over due diligence documents was rejected as privilege resided with Sirtex. The letter from Nomura/JAFCO to Dr Gray was not privileged. Dr Gray was ordered to provide proper description for documents over which...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Discovery Application; Reasons for Orders
Outcome
Applicant's application for further and better discovery granted in part; First Respondent's motion for further discovery dismissed; costs of most motions reserved or awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'oppressive Discovery' 'adequacy of Description of Documents' 'location of Inspection']
['practice and Procedure'] ['discovery' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'oppressive Discovery' 'adequacy of Description of Documents' 'location of Inspection']

Source-derived case record

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 Application; Reasons for Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether additional discovery sought by the applicant is relevant and not oppressive' 'Entitlement to legal professional privilege over due diligence documents' 'Adequacy of document descriptions for privilege claims' 'Location for inspection of documents']

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery of clinical data was refused for being overreaching and oppressive. Dr Gray's privilege claim over due diligence documents was rejected as privilege resided with Sirtex. The letter from Nomura/JAFCO to Dr Gray was not privileged. Dr Gray was ordered to provide proper description for documents over which privilege was claimed. Discovery for committee minutes and file notes sought by Dr Gray was refused for lack of relevance and evidence of insufficient discovery.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for further and better discovery granted in part; First Respondent's motion for further discovery dismissed; costs of most motions reserved or awarded as specified.

Orders

  • ["First Respondent to produce for inspection by Applicant any document relating to due diligence process undertaken by or on behalf of Second Respondent in 2000 not enumerated in letter from Second Respondent's solicitors dated 24 November 2006 by 8 December 2006." "First Respondent to produce document 18 of Part 2...