Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 83 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3) [2019] FCA 1641

File number: NSD 714 of 2017
Judge: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 8 October 2019
Catchwords:

DISCOVERY - itemisation of discovery lists under r 20.17 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) - itemisation of privileged documents - dispensation from requirement under r 1.34

DISCOVERY - particular discovery under r 20.21 of Federal Court Rules - turns on own facts

DISCOVERY - application for discovery of document filed in Supreme Court matter - implied undertaking - Harman principle - without prejudice communications

Legislation:

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131

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

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 20.11, 20.14, 20.15, 20.17, 20.20, 20.21

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.12

Cases cited:

789TEN Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [2004] NSWSC 594

Akins v Abigroup Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 539

Alafaci v Mangano [2009] NSWSC 1131

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 32; (2009) 174 FCR 547

Australian Mud Co Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 5) [2013] FCA 663

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2002] NSWSC 198

Bourns v Raychem Corporation [No 3] [1999] 1 All ER 908

Buswell v Carles (No 2) [2013] WASC 54

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas [2010] FCA 90

Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc [2011] FCA 1069

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 462; (2014) 232 FCR 560

Dennis v Chambers Investment Planners Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 63; (2012) 201 FCR 321

Domain Paper (Australia) Pty Ltd v Galloway [2014] FCA 936

Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] FCAFC 28

Eisa Ltd v Brady [2000] NSWSC 929

Field v Commissioner for Railways for New South Wales (1957) 99 CLR 285

Georgiou v Spencer Holdings Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1222

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (1998) 19 WAR 316

Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280

Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125

Helicopter Aerial Surveys Pty Ltd v Robertson [2015] NSWSC 2104

Independent Cement & Lime Pty Ltd v Australian Cement Ltd [1988] FCA 749

Kenquist Nominees Pty Ltd v Campbell (No 3) [2017] FCA 1230

Mulley & Marney v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 756

Re Universal Music (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd; Ex parte Merlin BV [2008] FCA 783; (2008) 222 FCR 580

Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881

Samnakay v Schofield [2013] WASCA 138

Srotyr v Clissold [2015] NSWSC 1770

Tracenia Nominees Pty Ltd v Centro Properties Ltd [1993] FCA 996

Trade Practices Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) (1995) 58 FCR 426

Date of hearing: 1 August 2019
Registry:
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3) 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
[2019] FCA 1641
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3) involved the plaintiff seeking discovery of documents from the defendant, who had previously been involved in a Supreme Court matter with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's application for discovery was made under rule 20.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the documents were privileged and that the plaintiff had not complied with the itemisation requirements under rule 20.17 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to discovery of the documents and whether the defendant was required to provide a breakdown of the documents under rule 20.17.

The court considered the arguments made by both parties and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery of the documents. The court found that the documents were not privileged and that the plaintiff had complied with the itemisation requirements under rule 20.17 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court also considered the Harman principle, which requires parties to act fairly and reasonably in the discovery process, and found that the plaintiff had not acted unreasonably in seeking discovery of the documents. The court further found that the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery of the documents due to an implied undertaking was without merit.

The court ordered that the parties were to confer as to orders reflecting these reasons. The court also directed the parties to confer about the costs of their interlocutory applications and the costs reserved from the case management hearings on 15 February 2019, 5 April 2019 and 30 May 2019, and by 4.00 pm on 22 October 2019 must provide a minute of consent orders dealing with those matters or, if agreement cannot be reached, separate minutes of orders. The proceedings were listed for a case management hearing at 11.00 am on 30 October 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties are directed to confer as to orders reflecting these reasons.

2. The parties must confer about the costs of their interlocutory applications and the costs reserved from the case management hearings on 15 February 2019, 5 April 2019 and 30 May 2019, and by 4.00 pm on 22 October 2019 must provide a minute of consent orders dealing with those matters or, if agreement cannot be reached, separate minutes of orders.

3. The proceedings are listed for a case management hearing at 11.00 am on 30 October 2019.

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

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.