Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd v Shoe Source Group Importing Pty Ltd

In the matter of Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd v Shoe Source Group Importing Pty Ltd, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue was whether non-party discovery could be ordered for bank statements, which were potentially held by several banks. Harris Scarfe sought to obtain these bank statements as part of their effort to prove a circumstantial case against Shoe Source Group Importing. The court was required to determine the applicability of the rules governing non-party discovery and whether the sought-after documents were directly relevant to the issues at hand.

The legal issues centred on the criteria for ordering non-party discovery under 87R 60. The court examined whether the documents Harris Scarfe sought were directly relevant and whether the party applying for the discovery had sufficient evidence to support a circumstantial case. Additionally, the court assessed the appropriate procedure for making such an application, particularly when the documents were held by multiple non-parties. The court needed to decide if the application should be directed to the non-party with whom the contents of the documents were most closely connected.

The court found that the bank statements in question could be obtained directly from the parties involved and thus no non-party discovery was necessary. Furthermore, the court held that for non-party discovery to be granted, the party applying must demonstrate discernible pieces of other evidence to complete the circumstantial case or show that the documents sought were directly relevant. The court also ruled that where documents were held by several non-parties, the application should initially be directed to the non-party with whom the contents of the documents were most closely connected. Consequently, the application for non-party discovery was dismissed.