Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 8)

Davaria Pty Limited, along with other applicants, sought leave to amend their pleadings in a class action against 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd, the first respondent, and others. The applicants sought leave to further amend their pleadings and to make changes to the definition of group members, as well as to add a new cause of action. The court considered the proposed amendments in the context of factors such as prejudice to the respondents, the effect on the trial timetable, and the applicants' explanation for the delay in making the amendments. Additionally, the applicants sought an order for oral discovery of four individuals who were former employees of 7-Eleven and subject to confidentiality obligations. The court considered whether the power to order oral discovery was available under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and whether it was appropriate to grant such an order in the circumstances.

The court held that the proposed amendments to the pleadings, which included adding a new cause of action and extending the definition of group members, were substantial and would introduce new and significant issues. The court considered the prejudice to the respondents, the effect on the trial timetable, and the applicants' explanation for the delay in making the amendments. The court found that the proposed amendments would cause substantial prejudice to the respondents and that the explanation for the delay was not sufficient to warrant leave to amend. Consequently, the application to amend the pleadings was refused in part. However, the court allowed the applicants leave to amend their pleadings in respect of the existing allegations of unconscionable conduct, the loss counterfactuals, and the removal of claims against the ANZ Bank.

Regarding the oral discovery application, the court held that the power to order oral discovery was not available under the relevant sections of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The court considered whether it was appropriate to grant oral discovery in the circumstances, taking into account the confidentiality obligations of the proposed examinees. The court found that it was not appropriate to grant oral discovery at that stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the application for oral discovery was dismissed.