Malouf v Malouf [1998] FCA 1808

Malouf v Malouf [1998] FCA 1808

The Court held the applicant did not meet the requirements of Order 15A rule 6: there was no reasonable cause to believe he had (or may have) a right to relief; he failed to make all reasonable inquiries; he was not deprived of sufficient information to decide on commencing proceedings; and, in any event, his lack of candour and credibility would preclude the exercise of discretion in his favour.

Parties
Applicant: Warwick George Strauss Malouf; First Respondent: John George Strauss Malouf; Second Respondent: Pamela Mary Strauss Malouf; Third Respondent: Osmal (Holdings) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Pre Trial Discovery / Motion Decision
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Discovery, Order 15 a Rule 6, Family Company Dispute
Civil Procedure Pre Trial Discovery Order 15 a Rule 6 Family Company Dispute

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warwick George Strauss Malouf

Applicant

John George Strauss Malouf

First Respondent

Pamela Mary Strauss Malouf

Second Respondent

Osmal (Holdings) Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Pre Trial Discovery / Motion Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable cause to believe he has or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court under Order 15A rule 6
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has made all reasonable inquiries and still lacks sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings
  3. 3 Whether respondents likely have possession of relevant documents, and whether their inspection would assist the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the applicant did not meet the requirements of Order 15A rule 6: there was no reasonable cause to believe he had (or may have) a right to relief; he failed to make all reasonable inquiries; he was not deprived of sufficient information to decide on commencing proceedings; and, in any event, his lack of candour and credibility would preclude the exercise of discretion in his favour.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.