Graham Evans Pty Limited v Stencraft Pty Limited [1997] FCA 60

Graham Evans Pty Limited v Stencraft Pty Limited [1997] FCA 60

The information sought from Watpac about its costs, revenue, and alleged loss on the Admiralty Towers project was, at most, of very marginal relevance to the pleaded claim. Graham Evans had quantified its lost opportunity claim by applying a chance factor and a profit percentage derived from its own completed projects, not by comparing notional construction costs and returns for Admiralty Towers. Watpac's overall loss, without more, would not justify an inference that Graham Evans could not have made the moderate profits it claimed, because Graham Evans may have had different pricing, administration, staff, and construction methods. Accordingly, the Court declined to exercise its...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Third Party Discovery / Notice of Motion
Outcome
The notice of motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['third Party Discovery Under O 15 a of the Federal Court Rules' 'relevance of Documents Sought From a Non Party' 'misleading Conduct Under S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'breach of Contract Damages' 'lost Opportunity Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'discovery' 'trade Practices' 'contract'] ['third Party Discovery Under O 15 a of the Federal Court Rules' 'relevance of Documents Sought From a Non Party' 'misleading Conduct Under S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'breach of Contract Damages' 'lost Opportunity Damages']

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

Application for Third Party Discovery / Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Watpac Australia Pty Ltd should be ordered to make third party discovery of documents revealing its costs and revenue on the Admiralty Towers project.' 'Whether the material sought from Watpac was relevant to any issue in the case as pleaded.' "Whether any relevance of the material was sufficient to justify exercising the Court's jurisdiction under O 15A of the Federal Court Rules."]

Ratio Decidendi

The information sought from Watpac about its costs, revenue, and alleged loss on the Admiralty Towers project was, at most, of very marginal relevance to the pleaded claim. Graham Evans had quantified its lost opportunity claim by applying a chance factor and a profit percentage derived from its own completed projects, not by comparing notional construction costs and returns for Admiralty Towers. Watpac's overall loss, without more, would not justify an inference that Graham Evans could not have made the moderate profits it claimed, because Graham Evans may have had different pricing, administration, staff, and construction methods. Accordingly, the Court declined to exercise its...

Court Disposition

The notice of motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' "The respondent in the action, as applicant on the notice of motion, pay Watpac Australia Pty Ltd's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion."]