Burswood Management Ltd v Burswood Casino Motel/Hotel

[1987] FCA 422

, ! .

42%

I N THE FEDERAL COURT 1 NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

O F A U S T R A L I A 1 ,-

WESTERN AUSTRALIA 1

D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y 1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N 1 NO. WAG 54 Of 1985

B E T W E E N : BURSWOOD MANAGEMENT L I M I T E D and WEST

A U S T R A L I A N T R U S T E E S L I M I T E D

A p p l i c a n t s

and

BURSWOOD CASINO MOTEL/HOTEL PTY L T D

F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t

and

FRANCESCO BEMPASCIUTO

Second R e s p o n d e n t

a

and

TELECOMMUNIC TIONS	AUSTRALIAN
COMMISSION

T h i r d R e s p o n d e n t

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J.

DATE O F O R D E R : 7 A u g u s t 1987

WHERE MADE : PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. B y 4 pm on Monday, 1 0 A u g u s t 1 9 8 7 , t h e R e s p o n d e n t s he

p rov ided w i t h a l i s t of documents from those discovered

..

i

which a re i n t e n d e d to be re l ied upon by t h e A p p l i c a n t s

a t t r i a l .

2 .

2 . C o p i e s of s u c h d o c u m e n t s b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e

I

I	R e s p o n d e n t s	a t	t h e	A p p l i c a n t s '	e x p e n s e	o n	Monday	10
i

I	August	1987.
j

3 . If t h e A p p l i c a n t s s h o u l d i n t e n d t o a d d u c e c o p i e s o f a n y

document i n t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y l i s t i n e v i d e n c e b e f o r e 4

pm o n Monday, copies b e p r o v i d e d t o t h e R e s p o n d e n t s

I

!

p r i o r t o	t h e	o p e n i n g	of	t h e case b y	c o u n s e l	f o r	t h e
A p p l i c a n t s .

l

i

i 4 . T h e A p p l i c a n t s p a y t h e R e s p o n d e n t s ' costs of t h e m o t i o n .

.a

I

5. T h e r e b e l i b e r t y t o a p p l y a t t r i a l f o r a n y f u r t h e r

n e c e s s a r y d i r e c t i o n s .

6. Nessrs. Burke , Dans Ja rman, , Semmens and Shimmon n o t b e

required t o a t t e n d i n a n s w e r t o t h e i r s u b p o e n a s p r i o r t o

10.15 am on 18 Augus t 1987 .

Note: S e t t l e m e n t a n d e n t r y of orders is d e a l t w i t h i n

Rule 36 of t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t R u l e s .

_ .

I N T H E FEDERAL COURT NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL

OF AUSTRALIA 1 DISTRIBUTION

WESTERN AUST ALIA 1

I	DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1 NO. WAG 5 4 O f 1 9 8 5

B E T W E E N : BURSWOOD MANAGEMENT LIMITED and WEST

AUSTRALIAN TRUSTEES LIMITED

A p p l i c a n t s

and

BURSWOOD CASINO MOTEL/HOTEL PTY LTD

F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t

and

FRANCESCO BEMPASCIUTO

c

Second Respondent

.a

l and

TELECOMMUNIC TIONS	AUSTRALIAN
COMMISSION

T h i r d R e s p o n d e n t

CORAM:

FRENCH J.

7 AUGUST 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

T h e r e s p o n d e n t s move t o vacate t h e h e a r i n g d a t e s f i x e d

I

f o r t h e t r i a l of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o n t h e 1 0 , 11, 13, 18 and 21

Augus t 1987. The motion ar ises o u t of t h e l a t e d i s c o v e r y b y t h e

a p p l i c a n t s	on	5	A u g u s t	1 9 8 7	o f	a	s i g n i f i c a n t number	of	a d d i t i o n a l
documen t s .

The documents a s a p p e a r from a list s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d

i n t h e court , r e l a t e l a r g e l y t o p r o m o t i o n a l material and newspaper

..

v 2.

a r t i c l e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e B u r s w o o d I s l a n d C a s i n o . T h e r e a r e ,

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e sol ic i tor f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , some s i x volumes

i n lever a r c h f i l e s of p r e s s c l i p p i n g s c o v e r i n g t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n

F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 5 a n d 2 0 M a r c h 1 9 8 7 n u m b e r i n g i n e x c e s s o f 1 , 0 0 0

p a g e s ; a n d t h r e e f u r t h e r l eve r a r c h b i n d e r s c o n t a i n i n g p r e s s

c l i p p i n g s	f r o m	S e p t e m b e r	1 9 8 5	to	June	1987	number ing	about	650
pages .

T h e r e were a l s o , i t is s a i d , f i v e VHF v i d e o t a p e

a d v e r t i s e m e n t s e a c h r u n n i n g f o r some 30 m i n u t e s ; 2 1 p r o m o t i o n a l

p a m p h l e t s of v a r y i n g s i z e and two la rge b u n d l e s o f miscellaneous

p r e s s c l i p p i n g s f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 8 4 , 1 9 8 5 and 1 9 8 6 . I n a d d i t i o n ,

t h e r e was a p r i n t p r o d u c t i o n w o r k s f o l i o of o v e r 5 0 p a g e s ,

c o n t a i n i n g p r e s s c l i p p i n g s a n d f o u r s u b s t a n t i a l s k e t c h books

c o n t a i n i n g n u m e r o u s press c l i p p i n g s . He e s t i m a t e d t h e d o c u m e n t s

to b e i n e x c e s s of 2000 pages. F u r t h e r , h e s a i d , t h e r e were some

f i v e sets o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l d r a w i n g s . !

I n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e l a s t m i n u t e d i s c o v e r y of t h e s e

documen t s , M r B i shop , a s o l i c i t o r e m p l o y e d b y t h e s o l i c i t o r s f o r

t h e a p p l i c a n t , h a s f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t i n which he s a i d t h a t h e h a d

b e e n t o l d b y t h e s u p e r v i s i n g p a r t n e r , Mrs G i l l o n , t h a t t h e matter

was l i s t e d f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e T o o h e y 3 . i n F e b r u a r y 1986 and an

ad jou rnmen t was ough t a t t h e l a s t moment. Between t h a t time and

t h e time when a l e t t e r d a t e d 23 J u l y 1 9 8 7 was r e c e i v e d from t h e

p r e s e n t so l ic i tors a d v i s i n g t h e y a c t e d for t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e r e

had , h e w a s t o l d , b e e n c n o m m u n i c a t i o n r e c e i v e d from a n y

s o l i c i t o r s a c t i n g f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .

So far as the applicants were aware, he said, the first

and second respondents did not have legal representation. He was

!

informed by his supervising partner and believed that the

application was fixed for hearing for two days on the basis that

it was not expected that there would be any serious defence

maintained by the first and second respondents. There had been no

application to dissolve or vary the interlocutory injunction

granted in June 1985 and there was, he said, no sign that the

respondents intended to play any slgnificant part in the hearing.

It was only on 23 July when the present solicitors acting for the respondents advised of their appointment and took

a I .

various interlocutory steps that it became apparent that the final

hearing of the proceedings would be a serious contest.

On that basis, counsel, M r Archer, was retained to act for the applicants and to appear at the hearing and it was as a

result of advice given by him that the additional documents were	i'
collected. On Tuesday, 4 August 1987, the Court was advised that the applicants would be filing a supplementary list.

I

It is evident that the documents contalned in the list and supplementary discovery relate to the reputation of the name "Burswood Casino" and that is a matter which, as is apparent from the pleadings, has been in issue from the beginning. the failure of the applicant to discover these documents hitherto is curious, but evidently arises from a failure to appreciate their relevance to the issue of reputation.

I	t
I
i

I 4 .

On the ot :her hand, it may be said that it wa S open to

I

i	the respondents before today, and this is no criticism, I might
i
!	say, of Mr Stokes, to appreciate the likely existence of
I
promotional materials relevant to reputation and to take steps to
j	ensure that discovery was complete.
I
I

The trial is now set down for hearing on five days

spread over two weeks before a visiting judge. I am not satisfied that the late discovery of the documents results in such incurable prejudice to the respondents, particularly having regard to their nature, that the trial date must be vacated. In my opinion,

! however, the situation does give rise to a need to give directions , .:

.*

I ,'.

to ensure that s o far as possible the impact of that late

discovery is mitigated and I propose to make orders accordingly.

i	I
,
I

I certify that this and the preceding

three ( 3 ) pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour

Mr Justice French.

Associate:

Date: 7 h y 1% 7

I

,	a	. .	c
l
I

5 .

l

C o u n s e l f o r t h e A p p l i c a n t s : M r S. Arche r

S o l i c i t o r s f o r t h e A p p l i c a n t s : R o b i n s o n Cox

C o u n s e l f o r t h e F i r s t a n d Second Respondents : Mr B. S t o k e s

I

S o l i c i t o r s f o r t h e F i r s t a n d S e c o n d R e s p o n d e n t s : B.F. S t o k e s &

Associates.

I

Date of H e a r i n g : 7 August 1987

Date of Judgment: 7 A u g u s t 1987

I

l

I