Frigger v Trenfield (No 4)

The case of Frigger v Trenfield (No 4) involved the applicants, Frigger and others, and the respondent, Trenfield. The nature of the dispute was related to bankruptcy proceedings and discovery orders. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to amend their statement of charge and filed an interlocutory application for discovery against the respondent. The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the applicants were entitled to rely on their amended statement of charge, the scope of discovery orders, and the procedure for serving affidavits and cross-examining deponents.

The court considered the arguments presented by the parties and decided that the applicants were granted leave to rely upon the amended statement of charge. The court also ordered the applicants to file and serve any affidavits and an outline of written submissions in opposition to the respondent's interlocutory application for discovery. The court directed that the respondent's interlocutory application would be dealt with on the papers, and the parties were required to serve on each other a list of each deponent of an affidavit whom they required to attend the hearing for the purposes of cross-examination. The affidavits of any deponent who did not make themselves available for cross-examination at the trial would not be received into evidence without the leave of the court. The hearing was confined to specific issues related to the third amended originating application filed by the applicants.

The court made several orders in relation to the case management hearing. The applicants were granted leave to rely upon the amended statement of charge filed on 26 May 2020. The applicants were also required to file and serve any affidavits and an outline of written submissions in opposition to the respondent's interlocutory application for discovery dated 2 June 2020. The respondent's interlocutory application was to be dealt with on the papers. The parties were required to serve on each other a list of each deponent of an affidavit whom they required to attend the hearing for the purposes of cross-examination. The affidavits of any deponent who did not make themselves available for cross-examination at the trial would not be received into evidence without the leave of the court. The hearing was to be confined to specific issues related to the third amended originating application filed by the applicants. Costs in relation to the case management hearing were to be costs in the cause.