Deep Investments Pty Ltd v Casey (No 1)

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deep Investments Pty Ltd v Casey (No 1) [2017] FCA 1643

File number: NSD 2189 of 2016
Judge: GLEESON J
Date of judgment: 12 May 2017
Date of publication of reasons: 2 August 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – notices to produce – whether notices in formal compliance with r 30.28 of Federal Court Rules 2011 – whether to require production of documents where legal professional privilege asserted – whether privilege waived
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 30.28
Cases cited:

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 707

DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc & Anor [2003] FCA 384; (2003) 127 FCR 499

Ferella & Another v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2010] FCA 766; (2010) 188 FCR 68

Macquarie Bank Limited v Arup Pty Limited [2016] FCAFC 117

Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589

Date of hearing: 11 May 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 35
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Dunning QC with Dr W Wild
Solicitor for the Applicant: K2 Law
Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Mr S Donaldson SC with Mr M Friedgut
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents: MinterEllison
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr AC Harding
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: K&L Gates
Counsel for the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Mr A McGrath SC with Mr SE Gray
Solicitor for the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Moray & Agnew

ORDERS

NSD 2189 of 2016
BETWEEN:

DEEP INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 003 339 319)

Applicant

AND:

KEVIN CASEY

First Respondent

PAUL CLARKE

Second Respondent

CBC PARTNERS PTY LTD (ACN 104 815 483) (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

GLEESON J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MAY 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in relation to the notice to produce dated 18 April 2017 issued on behalf of the first to third respondents.

2.To the extent necessary, compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in relation to the notice to produce dated 21 April 2017 issued by the fourth respondent.

3.Leave be granted to the first to fourth respondents to issue a notice to produce to the applicant returnable at 9.00 am on 15 May 2017 requiring the production of documents evidencing the receipt of the letter dated 5 April 2012 from Wilson HTM to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the form FS80 referred to in that letter prior to 29 January 2016.

4.To the extent necessary, compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in the relation to the notice to produce dated 12 April…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Deep Investments Pty Ltd v Casey (No 1) 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
[2017] FCA 1643
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deep Investments Pty Ltd v Casey (No 1) involved a dispute over the validity of notices to produce documents, which the applicant argued did not comply with rule 30.28 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The respondents sought to produce documents that the applicant claimed were subject to legal professional privilege. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the notices to produce complied with rule 30.28 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, and whether the respondents had waived their right to claim privilege over the documents in question.

The court examined the notices to produce issued by the respondents to determine whether they complied with rule 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court found that the notices did not strictly comply with the rule, but that the non-compliance did not significantly affect the fairness of the proceedings. The court also considered whether the respondents had waived their right to claim privilege over the documents. The court found that the respondents had not waived their right to claim privilege, as the privilege had not been expressly or impliedly waived. However, the court held that the respondents were entitled to dispense with strict compliance with rule 30.28(3) in relation to the notices to produce.

The court granted the respondents leave to issue a notice to produce to the applicant, requiring the production of documents evidencing the receipt of a letter from Wilson HTM to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the form FS80 referred to in that letter prior to 29 January 2016. The court also granted the respondents leave to dispense with strict compliance with rule 30.28(3) in relation to the notices to produce issued by the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents. The court held that the respondents were entitled to dispense with strict compliance with rule 30.28(3) in relation to the notices to produce issued by the first to fourth respondents, to the extent necessary. The court noted that the respondents were not entitled to dispense with strict compliance with rule 30.28(3) in relation to the notice to produce issued by the fourth respondent, to the extent necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in relation to the notice to produce dated 18 April 2017 issued on behalf of the first to third respondents.

2. To the extent necessary, compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in relation to the notice to produce dated 21 April 2017 issued by the fourth respondent.

3. Leave be granted to the first to fourth respondents to issue a notice to produce to the applicant returnable at 9.00 am on 15 May 2017 requiring the production of documents evidencing the receipt of the letter dated 5 April 2012 from Wilson HTM to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the form FS80 referred to in that letter prior to 29 January 2016.

4. To the extent necessary, compliance with r 30.28(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with in the relation to the notice to produce dated 12 April 2017 issued by the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.