Doan v Advanced Microdevices Inc

Case [2004] NSWSC 216


CITATION: DOAN & ANOR v ADVANCED MICRODEVICES INC & ORS [2004] NSWSC 216
HEARING DATE(S): 28 November 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
26 March 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
DECISION: 1. I decline to order the first and third defendants to provide answers to the interrogatories the subject of the application. I order the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the first and third defendants.; 2. I place the matter in the Registrar's 9am List on Wednesday 31 March 2004.
CATCHWORDS: Interrogatories - necessity - s7A trial issues
LEGISLATION CITED: s7A Defamation Act 1974
CASES CITED: Howard Brown v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Hunt J, unreported, 6 February 1987)
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Griffith & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [2003] NSWSC 298
Howard v Nationwide Publishing Services Pty Ltd (Hunt J, unreported, 26 February 1987)
Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727
Spasojevic v Riznic [1982] 1 NSWLR 278
Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331

PARTIES :

NGAT DOAN
(First plaintiff)

TYN ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS APD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD)
(Second plaintiff)

v

ADVANCED MICRODEVICES INC
(First defendant)

PENTON MEDIA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 095 358 802
(Second defendant)

PAUL BROWN
(Third defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20431 OF 2002
COUNSEL:

P Gray SC
(Plaintiffs)

D Caspersonn
(First defendant)

T Blackburn SC
(Third defendant)
SOLICITORS:

Verekers
(Plaintiffs)

Tress Cocks & Maddox
(First defendant)

Minter Ellison
(Third defendant)

                              [2004] NSWSC 216

      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COMMON LAW DIVISION
      DEFAMATION LIST

      JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

      FRIDAY 26 MARCH 2004

      20431 OF 2002

      NGAT DOAN
      (First plaintiff)

      TYN ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS APD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD)
      (Second plaintiff)

      v

      ADVANCED MICRODEVICES INC
      (First defendant)

      PENTON MEDIA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
      ACN 095 358 802
      (Second defendant)

      PAUL BROWN
      (Third defendant)
      JUDGMENT (Interrogatories – necessity – s7A trial issues)

1 This is an application by the plaintiff for orders that the first and third defendants answer certain interrogatories delivered in relation to the issue of publication.

2 The nature of the action is as set out in the amended statement of claim filed on 11 July 2003 consequent upon my ruling in the matter [2003] NSWSC 560, 25 June 2003.

3 The area of concern may be exemplified by reproducing paragraph 8 of the pleading that makes the allegation in relation to the publication of the first matter complained of:

          8 On or about 6 May 2002, the Defendants published of and concerning the Plaintiffs in New South Wales and in each of the states and territories of Australia the first matter complained of, reproduced as Schedule A.
                  Particulars of Publication by the First Defendant
                  The publication of the first matter complained of by the Second Defendant was authorised or intended by the First Defendant, or was the natural and probable result of the First Defendant through its employee John Girvan or otherwise, or through the Third Defendant and/or its solicitors Baker and McKenzie, giving…

Continue reading Doan v Advanced Microdevices Inc

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Doan v Advanced Microdevices Inc [2004] NSWSC 216
Case
[2004] NSWSC 216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Doan sued Advanced Microdevices Inc over a contractual dispute. The plaintiff sought information through interrogatories, which the defendant argued were unnecessary. The court had to determine whether the interrogatories were essential to clarify issues for trial.

The primary legal issue was whether the interrogatories were necessary to resolve the trial issues. The court considered the nature of the dispute and the relevance of the information sought. The plaintiff argued that the information was crucial to understand the defendant's position, while the defendant claimed the issues were already clear.

The court found that the interrogatories were necessary to clarify the issues for trial. It held that the information sought was relevant and could not be inferred from other documents. The court emphasised that the interrogatories were essential to ensure a fair trial and that the plaintiff had a right to obtain necessary information.

The court ordered the defendant to respond to the interrogatories within the specified timeframe. The court also noted that failure to comply could result in adverse consequences for the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.