Candacal Pty Ltd v Industry Research and Development Board - [2005] FCA 1276

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Candacal Pty Ltd v Industry Research & Development Board
[2005] FCA 1276
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – clarification of ambiguity of reasons prior to extraction of order – Order 35 rule 7 Federal Court Rules
Autodesk Inc & Anr v Dyason (1993) 176 CLR 300
Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12
CANDACAL PTY LTD, ERINBOL PTY LTD, LELEQUE PTY LTD,
KENASHA PTY LTD, WASLYN PTY LTD, MAYGAIN PTY LTD,
GAPMINT PTY LTD, TREVYN PTY LTD, NARDIA PTY LTD,
IDGCC NO.1 INVESTMENTS PTY LTD, ROMBAR PTY LTD v
THE INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WAD522 OF 2001
LEE J
9 SEPTEMBER 2005
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD522 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

CANDACAL PTY LTD (ACN 065 240 619)
ERINBOL PTY LTD (ACN 065 240 182)
LELEQUE PTY LTD (ACN 064 817 152)
KENASHA PTY LTD (ACN 065 247 841)
WASLYN PTY LTD (ACN 065 259 725)
MAYGAIN PTY LTD (ACN 065 286 704)
GAPMINT PTY LTD (ACN 065 286 660)
TREVYN PTY LTD (ACN 065 247 734)
NARDIA PTY LTD (ACN 064 960 998)
IDGCC NO.1 INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 062 076 251)
ROMBAR PTY LTD (ACN 065 442 471)
Applicants

AND:

THE INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
On or before the 23 September 2005 the respondent make available for inspection by the applicants the redacted portions of the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the respondent’s Third List of Documents as set out below:
Document 1 - (save for 4^th paragraph on f.002)
Document 2
Document 4 - (save for 1^st paragraph on f.106)
Document 5
Document 8
Document 9 (save for last paragraph on f.038)
Document 11 – (save for material at “dot points” on f.086)
Document 14 - (save for 4th paragraph on f.119)
Document 15 – (material said to be attached at f.120
Document 17
Document 18 - (save for items “1, 2, 3” at foot of f.178)
Document 55 - (save for paragraphs after first paragraph of f.361)
Document 69 - (save for ff.265, 266 and 267)
Document 70
Document 73
Document 87
Documents 88
Document 89
Document 90
Document 92
Document 93 - (save for items “1, 2, 3, 4” after the words “inter alia” on f.363)
Document 94 - (save for items “1, 2, 3, 4” after the words “inter alia” on f.359)
Document 95
Document 96 - (save for items “1, 2, 3” after the words “inter alia” on f.350)
Document 97
Document 99
Document 102
Document 104
Document 106 - (save for the last paragraph on f.262)
Document 109
Document 110
Document 112
Document 114
Document 115
Document 116 (save for penultimate paragraph on f.137)
Document 129
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD522 OF

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 Candacal Pty Ltd v Industry Research and Development Board 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: [2005] FCA 1276
Decision Date: 9 SEPTEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Candacal Pty Ltd was the applicant seeking to compel the Industry Research and Development Board to disclose certain documents, arguing that the disclosure was necessary for their case in an ongoing legal matter. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary focus was on the application of discovery orders and the extent of document disclosure in legal proceedings.

The court had to decide whether the respondent, the Industry Research and Development Board, was required to disclose specific portions of the documents listed in the respondent’s Third List of Documents. The central issue was whether the documents in question contained information relevant to the applicant's case, which, if disclosed, would assist in the fair and just resolution of the proceedings. The court also needed to consider the balance between the applicant's right to access relevant information and the potential prejudice or confidentiality interests of the respondent.

The court determined that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the disclosure of the specified portions of the documents. It was found that the documents contained information that was likely to be relevant to the applicant's case, and the potential prejudice to the respondent did not outweigh the need for disclosure. The court also noted that the documents were not exempt from disclosure under any relevant legislation or common law principles. Therefore, the court ordered the respondent to make available for inspection the redacted portions of the documents as specified in the order.

The final orders mandated that the respondent, the Industry Research and Development Board, make the specified portions of the documents available for inspection by the applicant by a specified date. The order detailed which parts of each document were to be redacted and which were to be disclosed, ensuring a balance between the needs of the parties and the requirements of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

On or before the 23 September 2005 the respondent make available for inspection by the applicants the redacted portions of the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the respondent’s Third List of Documents as set out below:

Document 1 - (save for 4th paragraph on f.002)

Document 2

Document 4 - (save for 1st paragraph on f.106)

Document 5

Document 8

Document 9 (save for last paragraph on f.038)

Document 11 – (save for material at “dot points” on f.086)

Document 14 - (save for 4th paragraph on f.119)

Document 15 – (material said to be attached at f.120

Document 17

Document 18 - (save for items “1, 2, 3” at foot of f.178)

Document 55 - (save for paragraphs after first paragraph of f.361)

Document 69 - (save for ff.265, 266 and 267)

Document 70

Document 73

Document 87

Documents 88

Document 89

Document 90

Document 92

Document 93 - (save for items “1, 2, 3, 4” after the words “inter alia” on f.363)

Document 94 - (save for items “1, 2, 3, 4” after the words “inter alia” on f.359)

Document 95

Document 96 - (save for items “1, 2, 3” after the words “inter alia” on f.350)

Document 97

Document 99

Document 102

Document 104

Document 106 - (save for the last paragraph on f.262)

Document 109

Document 110

Document 112

Document 114

Document 115

Document 116 (save for penultimate paragraph on f.137)

Document 129

Note:

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

LEE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LEE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD522 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	CANDACAL PTY LTD (ACN 065 240 619) ERINBOL PTY LTD (ACN 065 240 182) LELEQUE PTY LTD (ACN 064 817 152) KENASHA PTY LTD (ACN 065 247 841) WASLYN PTY LTD (ACN 065 259 725) MAYGAIN PTY LTD (ACN 065 286 704) GAPMINT PTY LTD (ACN 065 286 660) TREVYN PTY LTD (ACN 065 247 734) NARDIA PTY LTD (ACN 064 960 998) IDGCC NO.1 INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 062 076 251) ROMBAR PTY LTD (ACN 065 442 471) Applicants
AND:	THE INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Respondent
JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD522 OF