Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1207

PROCEDURE - discovery as to irrelevant matters pleaded in statement of claim - meaning of “matter in question in proceeding” - limits of train of inquiry test - whether discovery of irrelevant documents extends ambit of discovery - no discovery for purpose of damaging credit alone.

Federal Court Rules O 15 r 5, r 8, r 15, r 18

Martin and the Miles Martin Pen Coy Ld v Scrib Ld (1950) 67 RPC 127 (CA) Appl
Australian Energy Limited v Lennard Oil NL [1986] 2 Qd R 216 Cited
Officine Meccaniche Toschi Sp.A. v Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 2 Qd R 418 Cited

EXPECTATION PTY LTD v PRD REALTY PTY LTD AND GORDON DOUGLAS
NO WAG 181 OF 1996

COOPER J
BRISBANE
2 SEPTEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 181 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

EXPECTATION PTY LTD
ACN 009 030 102
Applicant

AND:

PRD REALTY PTY LTD
ACN 009 954 956
First Respondent

GORDON DOUGLAS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 SEPTEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The notice of motion filed 15 July 1999 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of and incidental to the notice of motion, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 181 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

EXPECTATION PTY LTD
ACN 009 030 102
Applicant

AND:

PRD REALTY PTY LTD
ACN 009 954 956
First Respondent

GORDON DOUGLAS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	2 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 5 December 1996 the applicant filed proceedings in this Court seeking damages and other relief against the respondents arising out of the appointment and conduct of the first respondent as agent of and adviser to the applicant in respect of certain real estate transactions.

2. The causes of action pleaded are alleged to arise at common law (breach of contract and negligence), under statute (s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“the TPA”); s 38 Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) (“the FTA”) and in equity (breach of fiduciary duty).

3. By its further amended statement of claim the applicant, in paragraph 4, pleads the oral appointment of the first respondent as adviser to the applicant in relation to possible real estate investments and as the agent for the applicant in relation to the investigation, negotiation for and purchase of such real estate investments.  The express terms of the appointment were pleaded in paragraph 5 of the further amended statement of claim, as follows :

   “5.      Express terms of the 1992 Appointment were (inter alia) that;

   5.1the First Respondent, through the Second Respondent, would act as exclusive purchasing agent for the Applicant, would locate land and other property for investment, would investigate each such…