Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Smart Corporation Pty Ltd

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission brought an application for discovery against Smart Corporation Pty Ltd and its director, Mr. David Holmes, due to their failure to comply with previous court orders. The primary issue before the court was whether Smart Corporation and Mr. Holmes had adequately explained their inability to produce certain documents and whether their evidence regarding the destruction of records was satisfactory.

The court found that Smart Corporation and Mr. Holmes failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their inability to produce the required documents. The evidence presented by Smart Corporation regarding their business practices for the destruction of records was deemed unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies and lack of substantiation. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for parties to provide detailed and credible explanations when they fail to meet their obligations. Consequently, the application for discovery was successful.

The court ordered Smart Corporation and Mr. Holmes to take several steps to ensure compliance with discovery obligations, including making inquiries with their email service providers and engaging independent IT professionals to conduct searches for relevant documents. The court also ordered that no party could rely on any document at trial unless it was listed in a specified document list. Additionally, Smart Corporation and Mr. Holmes were required to pay the applicant's costs of the application.