Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 5)

In Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 5), the applicants sought relief relating to the alleged infringement of an innovation patent, while the respondents sought relief for unjustified threats and revocation of the patent for invalidity. The applicants sought discovery of certain documents and the respondents sought an order for the applicants to provide their complete general ledger in its native electronic format. The primary issue before the court was whether the making of the orders sought by the applicants and the respondents would facilitate the just resolution of the proceeding as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible, in accordance with Rule 20.11 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth). The court found that the applicants were required to provide discovery of certain documents relied upon by them in support of their positive allegations. The court also found that the respondents were required to provide the applicants’ solicitors with a copy of the respondents’ complete general ledger in its native electronic format. However, the court dismissed the applicants’ and respondents’ other proposed discovery orders. The court ordered that the applicants pay 25% of the respondents’ costs of their interlocutory application and that the respondents pay 25% of the applicants’ costs of their interlocutory application. The court also made orders requiring the respondents to file and serve their evidence by certain dates.

The court considered the overarching purpose of civil practice and procedure, which is to facilitate the just resolution of the proceeding as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. The court found that the making of the orders sought by the applicants and respondents would not necessarily facilitate the just resolution of the proceeding in accordance with Rule 20.11. The court noted that the applicants had made positive allegations in their defence, which allegations were made prior to discovery by the respondents and so could not have been made based upon the respondents’ discovered documents. The court found that it was appropriate that the applicants provide discovery of documents relied upon to support those positive allegations. However, the court found that the making of the other proposed discovery orders would not necessarily facilitate the just resolution of the proceeding. The court found that the first respondent’s argument for discovery of certain documents did not go any higher than requiring discovery of those documents in order to provide “degrees of confidence” to Mr Meredith in compiling his expert report. The court found that this was insufficient to support an order for discovery, particularly having regard to Rule 20.11. The court found that the making of the other proposed discovery orders would not necessarily facilitate the just resolution of the proceeding. The court therefore dismissed the applicants’ and respondents’ other proposed discovery orders. The court also made orders requiring the respondents to file and serve their evidence by certain dates, and ordered that the applicants pay 25% of the respondents’ costs of their interlocutory application and that the respondents pay 25% of the applicants’ costs of their interlocutory application.