Tyco (Australia) Pty Ltd T/AS ADT Security v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 1266

Tyco (Australia) Pty Ltd T/AS ADT Security v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 1266

The Court ordered further discovery because the requested customer agreements were connected with matters referred to in the applicant's pleadings, the first respondent had shown reasons to be sceptical about relying only on summaries and previously discovered forms due to apparent inconsistencies in the applicant's contract records, and the burden and expense were not sufficient to refuse discovery. However, the Court allowed 42 days rather than the 14 days sought because that was the time estimated as necessary for compliance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Discovery and Confidentiality / Heard and Determined on 1 November 2010, With Applicant's Notice of Motion Filed on 19 October 2010 Stood Over in Part
Outcome
First respondent's discovery motion was granted with a 42-day compliance period; confidentiality-related orders were made; the applicant's motion was stood over in part; and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of paragraph 1(a) of the first respondent's notice of motion filed on 30...
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'notice to Produce' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'notice to Produce' 'confidentiality Undertakings' 'costs']

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

Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Discovery and Confidentiality / Heard and Determined on 1 November 2010, With Applicant's Notice of Motion Filed on 19 October 2010 Stood Over in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should give further discovery of customer agreements terminated between 1 January 2007 and August 2009 in respect of allegedly induced breaches identified by a matching exercise.' 'Whether the burden and expense of further discovery outweighed its utility.' 'Whether confidentiality undertakings and the confidentiality regime should be varied or extended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered further discovery because the requested customer agreements were connected with matters referred to in the applicant's pleadings, the first respondent had shown reasons to be sceptical about relying only on summaries and previously discovered forms due to apparent inconsistencies in the applicant's contract records, and the burden and expense were not sufficient to refuse discovery. However, the Court allowed 42 days rather than the 14 days sought because that was the time estimated as necessary for compliance.

Court Disposition

First respondent's discovery motion was granted with a 42-day compliance period; confidentiality-related orders were made; the applicant's motion was stood over in part; and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of paragraph 1(a) of the first respondent's notice of motion filed on 30...

Orders

  • ['The applicant give discovery with verification within 42 days of the documents sought at paragraph 1(a) of the notice of motion filed on behalf of the first respondent on 30 September 2010.' 'Susanna Ruth Lindsay Taylor and each of the legal representatives and the expert witness(es) retained by the first...