Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd - [2000] FCA 1577

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1577
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for security for costs – notices to produce in support of applications for security for costs – whether notices to produce were “fishing expeditions” – whether information sought was relevant to financial position of applicant.
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 referred to
Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Shell Co of Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 212 referred to
PETER G & ORS v BEAGLE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ORS
V 435 of 2000
GOLDBERG J
1 NOVEMBER 2000
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 435 of 2000

BETWEEN:

PETER G BAILEY and OTHERS
(according to attached Schedule of Applicants)
Applicants

AND:

BEAGLE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 009 280 791)
First Respondent

B M LIMITED
(ACN 009 362 350)
Second Respondent

BEAGLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 009 280 782)
Third Respondent

JOHN CARLTON YOUNG
Fourth Respondent

HELEN MARGARET SEWELL
Fifth Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEES WA LIMITED
(ACN 008 666 886)
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 NOVEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applications made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants’ notice of motion filed on 20 October 2000 be dismissed.
2.The application made in paragraph 4 of the said notice of motion be adjourned sine die.
3.The further response of the applicants to the Notice to Produce dated 10 October 2000 served on the applicants by the first to fifth respondents and to the Notice to Produce dated 17 October 2000 served on the applicants by the sixth respondent be stood over pending the hearing and determination of any application by the applicants for leave to appeal against the order made in paragraph 1 of this order.
4.The further hearing of the Notices of Motion filed on 10 October 2000 and 17 October 2000 by the first to fifth respondents and by the sixth respondent respectively be adjourned pending the hearing and determination of any application by the applicants for leave to appeal against the order made in paragraph 1 of this order.
5.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs in relation to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants’ said Notice of Motion including the costs of the hearing on 1 November 2000.
6.The costs of all parties in relation to the respondents’ said notices of motion be reserved for further consideration.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 435 of 2000

BETWEEN:

PETER G BAILEY and OTHERS
(according to attached Schedule of Applicants)
Applicants

AND:

BEAGLE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 009 280 791)
First Respondent

B M LIMITED
(ACN 009 362 350)
Second Respondent

BEAGLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 009 280 782)
Third Respondent

JOHN CARLTON YOUNG
Fourth Respondent

HELEN MARGARET SEWELL
Fifth Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEES WA LIMITED
(ACN 008 666 886)
Sixth Respondent

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] FCA 1577
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd, the applicants, Bailey, sought various orders against the respondents, including Beagle Management Pty Ltd and others. The dispute centred around the applicants' motions filed on 20 October 2000, which sought specific relief from the court. The case was heard in a court which held jurisdiction over the matter based on the nature and parties involved.

The legal issues before the court included the validity and appropriateness of the orders sought by the applicants in their notice of motion. The court had to determine whether the applications made by the applicants were justified and whether they should be granted, dismissed, or adjourned. Additionally, the court needed to consider the respondents' notices to produce and whether the applicants' responses to these notices were adequate.

The court dismissed the applications made in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the applicants' notice of motion. The application in paragraph 4 was adjourned sine die. The court further directed that the applicants' further responses to the notices to produce be stood over, pending the outcome of any potential appeal by the applicants. The hearing of the respondents' notices of motion was similarly adjourned. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs in relation to the dismissed applications, while the costs of all parties in relation to the respondents' notices of motion were reserved for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants’ notice of motion filed on 20 October 2000 be dismissed.

2. The application made in paragraph 4 of the said notice of motion be adjourned sine die.

3. The further response of the applicants to the Notice to Produce dated 10 October 2000 served on the applicants by the first to fifth respondents and to the Notice to Produce dated 17 October 2000 served on the applicants by the sixth respondent be stood over pending the hearing and determination of any application by the applicants for leave to appeal against the order made in paragraph 1 of this order.

4. The further hearing of the Notices of Motion filed on 10 October 2000 and 17 October 2000 by the first to fifth respondents and by the sixth respondent respectively be adjourned pending the hearing and determination of any application by the applicants for leave to appeal against the order made in paragraph 1 of this order.

5. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs in relation to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants’ said Notice of Motion including the costs of the hearing on 1 November 2000.

6. The costs of all parties in relation to the respondents’ said notices of motion be reserved for further consideration.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 435 of 2000

BETWEEN:	PETER G BAILEY and OTHERS (according to attached Schedule of Applicants) Applicants
AND:	BEAGLE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 009 280 791) First Respondent B M LIMITED (ACN 009 362 350) Second Respondent BEAGLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 280 782) Third Respondent JOHN CARLTON YOUNG Fourth Respondent HELEN MARGARET SEWELL Fifth Respondent PERPETUAL TRUSTEES WA LIMITED (ACN 008 666 886) Sixth Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 NOVEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE