FPT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD -v- TRANSFIELD PTY LTD [2001] WASC 214

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 214
Published:	14/08/2001
Case No:	CIV:2199/2000	Heard:	31 JULY 2001
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	10/08/01
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FPT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 081 459 878) TRANSFIELD PTY LTD (ACN 000 854 688) SKILLED MATERIALS HANDLING PTY LTD (ACN 086 261 225)
Catchwords:	Interrogatories Application for leave to administer interrogatories Relevant considerations
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Kupresac v Clifton Bricks (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1984) 75 FLR 172 Aspar Autobarn Co-operative Society v Dovola (1987) 16 FCR 284 Attorney-General v Gaskill [1882] 20 Ch D 519 Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v CE Heath Insurance Broking (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 703 Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Monisse [1999] WASCA 103 Derham v Amev Life Insurance Co Ltd (1978) 20 ACTR 23 Gamer's Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 236 Hennessy v Wright (No 2) [1882] 24 QBD 445 Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Hawke [1984] VR 587 Hooton v Dalby [1907] 2 KB 18 Irvine v The State of Western Australia [2000] WASCA 56 Konings v Naylor [1964] Qd R 235 McKinley v Robinson [1888] 14 VLR 195 Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Wilkinson [2001] 1 All ER 148 Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 Richey Fishing Co Ltd v TSB Developments Pty Ltd [1999] TASSC 151 Seidler & Anor v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 390 Sharp v Smail (1975) 5 ALR 377 Spedley Securities Ltd (In Liq) v Yuill (No 4) (1991) 5 ACSR 758 The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane v Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd [1995] 2 Qd R 121 Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 3) [1992] 1 Qd R 587 WA Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 559

`
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : FPT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD -v- TRANSFIELD PTY LTD [2001] WASC 214 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 31 JULY 2001 DELIVERED : 10 AUGUST 2001 PUBLISHED : 14 AUGUST 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 2199 of 2000 BETWEEN : FPT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 081 459 878)

Plaintiff

AND

TRANSFIELD PTY LTD (ACN 000 854 688)

Defendant

SKILLED MATERIALS HANDLING PTY LTD (ACN 086 261 225)

Third Party

Catchwords:

Interrogatories - Application for leave to administer interrogatories - Relevant considerations

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D M Fairweather

Defendant : Mr P Clifford

Third Party : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Allens Arthur Robinson

Defendant : Geoffrey Walker

Third Party : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Kupresac v Clifton Bricks (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1984) 75 FLR 172

Case(s) also cited:

Aspar Autobarn Co-operative Society v Dovola (1987) 16 FCR 284
Attorney-General…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read FPT (Australia) Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] WASC 214
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of FPT (Australia) Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought leave to administer interrogatories to the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, FPT (Australia) Pty Ltd, was seeking to gather specific information from the defendant, Transfield Pty Ltd, to assist in their ongoing litigation. The application for leave to administer interrogatories was the primary issue before the court.

The legal issue at the heart of this application was whether the interrogatories proposed by the plaintiff were relevant and necessary to the case. The plaintiff argued that the information sought was critical to understand the defendant's position and to effectively prosecute their claims. Conversely, the defendant raised objections to certain interrogatories, arguing that the information requested was either irrelevant, privileged, or could be obtained through other means. The court was required to assess the relevance and necessity of the interrogatories in the context of the overall litigation and the proportionality of the information sought.

The court considered various factors in determining whether the interrogatories should be allowed. It examined the relevance of each interrogatory to the issues in the case, the proportionality of the information sought, and whether there were alternative means to obtain the necessary information. The court acknowledged the importance of the information for the plaintiff's case but also recognised the need to protect the defendant from unnecessary burden. After careful consideration, the court allowed the application in part, permitting certain interrogatories while rejecting others on the grounds of relevance and proportionality. The court's decision balanced the plaintiff's need for information against the defendant's right to not be subjected to unnecessary discovery processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed in part

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.