FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Findlay v Next Financial Limited [2012] FCA 1350
Citation: Findlay v Next Financial Limited [2012] FCA 1350 Parties: SUZANNE MARY FINDLAY AND OTHERS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED) v NEXT FINANCIAL LIMITED ACN 081 722 894
KATHERINE BELL AND OTHERS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED) v NEXT FINANCIAL LIMITED ACN 081 722 894
File numbers: WAD 413 of 2011
WAD 104 of 2012Judge: BARKER J Date of judgment: 28 November 2012 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – discovery by categories – standard discovery
CORPORATIONS – managed investment scheme – “to be pooled” – intention to pool
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 9, s 9(a)(i), s 9(a)(ii), Ch 5C, Ch 6D
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) r 1.0.02(1), r 6D.5.01
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) R 20.14, R 20.14(2)Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Emu Brewery Mezzanine Ltd [2004] WASC 241; (2004) 187 FLR 270
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Enterprise Solutions 2000 Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 452; [2003] 1 Qd R 135
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Enterprise Solutions 2000 Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 387; (1999) 33 ACSR 403
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Knightsbridge Managed Funds Ltd [2001] WASC 339
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Takaran Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 834; (2002) 170 FLR 388
Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147; (2009) 180 FCR 11
Burton v Arcus [2006] WASCA 71; (2006) 32 WAR 366
National Australia Bank Ltd v Norman [2009] FCAFC 152; (2009) 180 FCR 243Date of hearing: 22 November 2012 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 31 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr DH Solomon with Ms T Hong Solicitor for the Applicants: Solomon Brothers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr SG Finch SC with Mr RM Foreman Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 413 of 2011
BETWEEN: SUZANNE MARY FINDLAY AND OTHERS (ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED)
ApplicantsAND: NEXT FINANCIAL LIMITED ACN 081 722 894
RespondentNEXT FINANCIAL LIMITED ACN 081 722 894
Cross ClaimantAUDAX LEGAL PTY LTD ACN 102 860 435
Cross RespondentNEXT FINANCIAL LIMITED ACN 081 722 894
Cross ClaimantHARTS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD ACN 128 904 521
Cross RespondentJUDGE: BARKER J DATE OF ORDER: 28 NOVEMBER 2012 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent provide standard discovery under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 26 April 2013.
2.The applicants give discovery by categories as previously agreed by the parties.
3.Costs of the discovery hearing of 22 November 2012 be in the cause.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 104 of 2012
BETWEEN: KATHERINE BELL AND OTHERS (ACCORDING TO…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Findlay v Next Financial Limited 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
- [2012] FCA 1350
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred around the discovery process in the context of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent should provide standard discovery and whether the discovery by categories, as previously agreed upon by the parties, should be enforced. The applicants sought standard discovery, which would require the respondent to disclose all documents in its possession that were relevant to the proceedings. In contrast, the respondent argued that the agreed-upon discovery by categories was sufficient and that standard discovery was unnecessary.
The court considered the principles governing discovery and the specific circumstances of the case. It was noted that standard discovery is generally available in the Federal Court, but the court has discretion to order discovery by categories instead if it is deemed appropriate. The court concluded that standard discovery was warranted in this instance, given the complexity of the financial transactions and the need for comprehensive disclosure. The court also affirmed the previous agreement on discovery by categories, ordering that the parties proceed with this method as previously negotiated.
The court's orders included a directive for the respondent to provide standard discovery by a specified date, while also enforcing the previously agreed discovery by categories. Additionally, the costs associated with the discovery hearing were to be borne by the parties in accordance with the Federal Court Rules 2011. The decision underscored the importance of clear and comprehensive disclosure in complex financial litigation, ensuring that all relevant information is available to the parties for the fair resolution of the dispute.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent provide standard discovery under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 26 April 2013.
2. The applicants give discovery by categories as previously agreed by the parties.
3. Costs of the discovery hearing of 22 November 2012 be in the cause.
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.