Century v THLD (No 3)

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.