Trade Practices Commission v. Gold Coast Property Sales P/L & Ors [1994] FCA 842

Trade Practices Commission v. Gold Coast Property Sales P/L & Ors [1994] FCA 842

There are sufficient grounds for believing the existence of further undiscovered documents relevant to the issues, and the respondents' responses do not dispel the inference; therefore, the court is justified in making the order for specific further discovery.

Parties
Applicant: Trade Practices Commission; First Respondent: Gold Coast Property Sales Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: David Marr; Third Respondent: Jason Hodson; Fourth Respondent: Adrian Hodson; Fifth Respondent: Rosemary Christine Hodson; Sixth Respondent: Milton James Hodson; Seventh Respondent: Andrew McNair; Eighth Respondent: Television and Telecasters Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1994
Procedural Posture
Motion for Further Discovery / Interlocutory
Outcome
Specific further discovery granted; costs order in favour of applicant.
Legal Topics
Discovery, False and Misleading Representations, Land Sale
Commercial Law Discovery False and Misleading Representations Land Sale

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Applicant

Gold Coast Property Sales Pty Ltd

First Respondent

David Marr

Second Respondent

Jason Hodson

Third Respondent

Adrian Hodson

Fourth Respondent

Rosemary Christine Hodson

Fifth Respondent

Milton James Hodson

Sixth Respondent

Andrew McNair

Seventh Respondent

Television and Telecasters Limited

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Further Discovery / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further specific discovery should be ordered for certain classes of documents related to land marketing and sale
  2. 2 Whether respondents have complied with discovery obligations

Ratio Decidendi

There are sufficient grounds for believing the existence of further undiscovered documents relevant to the issues, and the respondents' responses do not dispel the inference; therefore, the court is justified in making the order for specific further discovery.

Court Disposition

Specific further discovery granted; costs order in favour of applicant.

Orders

  • The First to Sixth Respondents to file and serve within seven (7) days an affidavit stating whether the specified classes of documents exist or have been in their possession, and if no longer in their possession, what has become of them.
  • First to Sixth Respondents to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this motion, to be taxed, and applicant entitled to have those costs taxed forthwith.