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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FCA 1643
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.