Finnegan v Washington (No 3)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Finnegan v Washington (No 3) [2020] FCA 1654

File number:

WAD 429 of 2019

Judgment of:

JACKSON J

Date of judgment:

11 November 2020

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for non‑standard discovery and interrogatories - where orders for standard discovery have been made and standard discovery not yet complete - application premature - application adjourned

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.13, 20,14, 20.15, 21.01

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Western Australia

National Practice Area:

Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs:

23

Date of hearing:

11 November 2020

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr A Gregg

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Wotton & Kearney Lawyers

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

The second respondent appeared in person

Counsel for the Third Respondent:

Ms K Michael

Solicitor for the Third Respondent:

Aherns Lawyers

ORDERS

WAD 429 of 2019

BETWEEN:

PATRICK FINNEGAN

Applicant

AND:

TIM WASHINGTON

First Respondent

MATTHEW KEMNER

Second Respondent

RICHARD BAIRD

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant's interlocutory application dated 1 September 2020 is adjourned for mention on a date to be fixed after the termination of the mediation of the matter, whether due to settlement of the dispute or otherwise.

2.Costs reserved.

3.Liberty to apply.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(edited from the transcript)

JACKSON J:

1. This is an application brought by the applicant, Mr Finnegan, for orders for non‑standard discovery and leave to administer interrogatories. It is made in an interlocutory application that was filed on 1 September 2020, which also sought, at the same time, an order that the respondents give standard discovery pursuant to r 20.13 and r 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2. At the first return of the interlocutory application, all three respondents indicated that they accepted that they should give standard discovery. Directions were made for conferral about a minute of consent orders in that regard. No minute was provided within the time contemplated by the directions. However, yesterday the court received a minute of consent orders providing for standard discovery and, in accordance with that minute, orders for standard discovery under r 20.13 and r 20.14 were made yesterday.

3. As a result, the issues that remain as raised by the interlocutory application are whether non‑standard discovery should be given pursuant to r 20.15 and whether an order giving leave to administer interrogatories should be made pursuant to r 21.01.  Mr Finnegan has supported his interlocutory application with an affidavit that he swore on 14 September 2020.  This attaches a list of proposed categories of documents which would be the subject of the order for non‑standard discovery, and a list of the proposed interrogatories.  Both lists are quite extensive.  The list of categories of documents is broken up into 18…