ABDIRAHMAN v Assetlink Link Services (17) Pty Limited

This matter concerned an application for preliminary discovery brought by ABDIRAHMAN against Assetlink Link Services (17) Pty Limited before Justice Riley of the Federal Court of Australia. The core of the dispute revolved around whether an application for preliminary discovery constitutes a "proceeding" for the purposes of the relevant rules and legislation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether an application for preliminary discovery under rule 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. A secondary issue arose from the respondent's argument that if it were a proceeding, an order for discovery would be final relief, thus not conforming with the statutory prerequisite of being "in the interests of the administration of justice" by contributing to the fair and expeditious conduct of proceedings.

Justice Riley found that the weight of authority, including decisions from French J, Besanko J, and Bennett J, supports the view that an application for preliminary discovery is a proceeding. His Honour respectfully disagreed with the contrary view expressed in *Telstra Corporation Limited v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts*, noting that it was decided without reference to earlier, persuasive authority. The Court held that the definition of "proceeding" in section 4 of the Act, which includes incidental proceedings, encompasses applications for preliminary discovery. Regarding the respondent's secondary submission, the Court clarified that while the interests of justice are a prerequisite, the specific requirement that discovery contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of proceedings is a matter for consideration, not a prerequisite that must be met for the order to be granted.