Century v THLD (No 3) - [2000] NSWSC 428

CITATION: Century v THLD (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 428

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50042/1998

HEARING DATE(S): 19/05/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 June 2000

PARTIES :

Century Medical Inc - Plaintiff
THLD Limited - First Defendant
Medical TPLC Pty Limited - Second Defendant
TPLC Pty Limited - Third Defendant
Telectronics Pacing Systems Inc - Fourth Defendant
TPLC Incorporated - Fifth Defendant
Nucleus Limited - Sixth Defendant
Pacific Dunlop Limited - Seventh Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Rolfe J

COUNSEL : Mr L.G. Foster SC - Plaintiff
Mr T.J. Walker - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Blake Dawson Waldron - Plaintiff
Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Melbourne - Defendants

CATCHWORDS: Leave to Re-Open Judgment Before Order Passed and Entered - Leave granted. - Discovery: Application of the definition of "relevance" in Part 23 rule 1(d) to the balance of the Part and Application in cases where documents give rise to a train of inquiry.

CASES CITED: National Australia Bank Limited & Ors v Idoport Pty Limited & Anor (2000) NSWCA 8
Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672
Auto Desk Inc & Anor v Dyason & Ors (1993) 176 CLR 300
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 at p.345
Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors (1999) NSWSC 1026
Lakatoi Universal Pty Limited & Ors v Walker & Ors (Rolfe J - 31 July 1998 - unreported)
Compagnie Financiers du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) XI QBD 55 at p.63
Dubbo Base Hospital v Jones [1979] 1 NSWLR 225

DECISION: Leave granted to re-open. I stand the matter over to Friday, 9 June 2000. I invite the plaintiff to bring in Short Minutes of Order on that day to give effect to these reasons and I shall hear argument on the question of costs of the matters thus far argued.

29

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

ROLFE J

THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2000

50042/1998 - CENTURY MEDICAL INC v THLD LIMITED & ORS (NO 3)

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1 These are large and complicated proceedings in the Commercial List in which the plaintiff claims damages of some $50m against the defendants. They are still in the interlocutory stage, notwithstanding that they were commenced in April 1998, and there have been, since then, a number of hard fought interlocutory applications. This is another and it is concerned with discovery.
2 On 7 April 2000 the plaintiff, for which Mr L.G. Foster of Senior Counsel appears, filed a Notice of Motion seeking certain relief in respect of discovery. It came before me on 14 April 2000 when the parties agreed that I should deal with portion of it only. On 19 April 2000 I delivered my reasons for judgment, concluding:-

“38. In dealing with the contentious issues before me I have set forth my views as to the extent of discovery. As I understood it, the parties propose to act conformably with these opinions. If necessary formal orders can be made.

39. I propose that the balance…

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 Century v THLD (No 3) 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] NSWSC 428
Decision Date: 1 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Century v THLD (No 3) involved Century as the applicant and THLD as the respondent. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought leave to re-open a judgment before the order was passed and entered, to pursue discovery of documents which had not previously been considered. The central issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the definition of "relevance" in Part 23 rule 1(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly in relation to the balance of Part 23 and the application of the rule in cases where documents give rise to a train of inquiry.

The court considered whether the documents in question were relevant under the definition provided in Part 23 rule 1(d), which requires that documents be relevant to an issue in the proceeding. The court had to determine if the relevance of documents extends to those which might give rise to a train of inquiry, potentially leading to further discovery of relevant documents. The court held that the definition of relevance should be interpreted broadly, to encompass not only documents that directly pertain to the issues in the proceeding, but also those that may lead to further relevant information. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of Part 23, which is to facilitate the discovery of documents necessary for the fair resolution of the proceeding.

Consequently, the court granted the applicant's application for leave to re-open the judgment before the order was passed and entered. The court found that the documents sought by the applicant could be relevant under the broad definition of relevance, as they might lead to the discovery of further information that could be pertinent to the issues in the proceeding. This decision allows the applicant to pursue the discovery of documents that were previously not considered but may now be relevant due to their potential to give rise to a train of inquiry. The court's reasoning reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the discovery process is thorough and fair, without unduly restricting the scope of relevance.

Orders