GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) - [2011] FCA 587

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) [2011] FCA 587

Citation: GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) [2011] FCA 587

Parties: GM HOLDEN LTD (ACN 006 893 232), GENERAL MOTORS LLC and GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC v BELAAA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY TALEB TYRES (AUST) PTY LIMITED) (ACN 107 451 794), AHMED TALEB and MOHAMED TALEB

File number: VID 629 of 2010

Judge: MARSHALL J

Date of judgment: 1 June 2011

Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52, 53(a)

Cases cited: GM Holden Ltd v Paine [2011] FCA 569

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Receipt of last written submissions: 27 May 2011

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 22

Counsel for the Applicants: E Heerey

Solicitor for the Applicants: Middletons

Counsel for the Respondents: A Franklin SC with J S Mendel

Solicitor for the Respondents: Theodore Solomon & Partners

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 629 of 2010

BETWEEN:
GM HOLDEN LTD (ACN 006 893 232)
First Applicant

GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Second Applicant

GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
Third Applicant

AND:
BELAAA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY TALEB TYRES (AUST) PTY LIMITED) (ACN 107 451 794)
Eighth Respondent

AHMED TALEB
Ninth Respondent

MOHAMED TALEB
Tenth Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 MAY 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 and filed by the ninth and tenth respondents is set aside.
2.The ninth and tenth respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 629 of 2010

BETWEEN:
GM HOLDEN LTD (ACN 006 893 232)
First Applicant

GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Second Applicant

GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
Third Applicant

AND:
BELAAA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY TALEB TYRES (AUST) PTY LIMITED) (ACN 107 451 794)
Eighth Respondent

AHMED TALEB
Ninth Respondent

MOHAMED TALEB
Tenth Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

1 JUNE 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 30 May 2011, due to the urgency of this matter and having the benefit of all written submissions relied on, the Court made the following orders in chambers:
·The notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 and filed by the ninth and tenth respondents is set aside.
·The ninth and tenth respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.
What follows are the reasons for so doing.
GM Holden Ltd, General Motors LLC and GM Global Technology Operations LLC (“the applicants”) commenced a proceeding in this Court against certain respondents, including Belaaa Pty Ltd (in liquidation), Ahmed Taleb and Mohamed Taleb (“the eighth, ninth and tenth respondents respectively”).
The applicants sought relief for what…

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 GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) 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: [2011] FCA 587
Decision Date: 1 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GM Holden Limited v Paine (No 2) involved GM Holden Limited, an automotive manufacturer, as the plaintiff, and Paine as the defendant. The dispute arose from a notice to produce that was issued by the ninth and tenth respondents, seeking specific documents from GM Holden. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary concern was whether the notice to produce was valid and enforceable under the circumstances presented.

The court was tasked with determining the legality and enforceability of the notice to produce issued by the ninth and tenth respondents. The arguments centred around whether the notice was appropriately tailored to the scope of the proceedings and whether it was reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The court needed to consider the balance between the rights of the parties to access necessary information for the litigation and the potential prejudice or burden imposed by the notice.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the notice to produce was not tailored to the specific scope of the proceedings, thus exceeding the permissible bounds of the litigation. The court held that the notice was not reasonable and fair, given the extensive scope of the requested documents and the potential for significant prejudice to GM Holden. Consequently, the court set aside the notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 and ordered the ninth and tenth respondents to pay the applicants’ costs associated with the application to set aside the notice.

As a result of the court's decision, the notice to produce was effectively nullified, and the ninth and tenth respondents were required to compensate GM Holden for the costs incurred in challenging the notice. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that notices to produce are properly tailored to the scope of the litigation to avoid undue burden on the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice to produce dated 17 May 2011 and filed by the ninth and tenth respondents is set aside.

2. The ninth and tenth respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the application to set aside the notice to produce.

Note:

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.

Citation:		GM Holden Ltd v Paine (No 2) [2011] FCA 587
Parties:		GM HOLDEN LTD (ACN 006 893 232), GENERAL MOTORS LLC and GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC v BELAAA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY TALEB TYRES (AUST) PTY LIMITED) (ACN 107 451 794), AHMED TALEB and MOHAMED TALEB
File number:		VID 629 of 2010
Judge:		MARSHALL J
Date of judgment:		1 June 2011
Legislation:		Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52, 53(a)
Cases cited:		GM Holden Ltd v Paine [2011] FCA 569
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Receipt of last written submissions:	27 May 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	22
Counsel for the Applicants:	E Heerey
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Middletons
Counsel for the Respondents:	A Franklin SC with J S Mendel
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Theodore Solomon & Partners

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 629 of 2010

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	1 JUNE 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE