FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hooke v Bux Global Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 836
File number: WAD 644 of 2017 Judge: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 5 June 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - whether orders should be made for disclosure - concise statement - direct relevance determined by reference to concise statement and affidavit in support of application - order made for discovery of categories of documents
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - subpoena - leave to inspect documents - whether leave should be refused on the basis that documents not relevant - orders made for inspection
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 461 Cases cited: Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Western Power Corporation [1998] WASCA 127; (1998) 19 WAR 350
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ABC Fund Managers Ltd (No 2) [2001] VSC 383
Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 60; (2001) 105 FCR 136
Boase v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [No 3] [2012] WASC 498
Hooke v Bux Global Limited [2018] FCA 740
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 17 May 2018 (Plaintiffs)
25 May 2018 (Defendant)Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 47 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Mr SJ Penrose Solicitor for the Plaintiffs: Tottle Partners Counsel for the Defendant: Mr NH Brown, Mr PH Murray & Ms C Palfrey Solicitor for the Defendant: K&L Gates ORDERS
WAD 644 of 2017 BETWEEN: PETER JAMES HOOKE & CLAIRE ELIZABETH HOOKE
First Plaintiff
PETER JAMES HOOKE & BRICE JAMES HOOKE AS TRUSTEES FOR THE HOOKE SUPERANNUATION FUND
Second Plaintiff
AND: BUX GLOBAL LIMITED (ACN 613 313 616)
Defendant
JUDGE:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 JUNE 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The defendant do forthwith provide to the plaintiffs disclosure and electronic copies of documents created before 1 January 2016 that are in the defendant's possession, custody or control and are within one or more of the categories listed in Annexure A to the orders of Barker J made 26 April 2018 and of which the defendant is aware after a reasonable search conducted in good faith.
2.The defendant do forthwith provide to the plaintiffs disclosure and electronic copies of documents within one or more of the categories listed in Annexure B to the orders of Barker J made 26 April 2018 and of which the defendant is aware after a reasonable search conducted in good faith (save for documents in category 6 in Annexure B).
3.The plaintiffs have leave to inspect the documents produced by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd in response to subpoenas issued in these proceedings.
4.The defendant do pay the plaintiffs costs of and concerning the issues determined by…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hooke v Bux Global Limited (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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 836
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant should be compelled to disclose specific categories of documents and whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to inspect documents produced by the financial institutions. The court had to determine the relevance of the documents in question by considering the concise statement of claim and the affidavit in support of the application for discovery. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the documents were relevant enough to warrant inspection, despite the defendant's objections.
Justice Edelman held that the documents in question were directly relevant to the proceedings. The court found that the concise statement and the affidavit provided sufficient basis for determining the relevance of the documents. Consequently, the court made orders for the defendant to provide the plaintiffs with disclosure and electronic copies of certain categories of documents. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to inspect the documents produced by the financial institutions, despite the defendant's objections regarding their relevance.
The court ordered the defendant to provide the plaintiffs with specific categories of documents created before a certain date and to which the defendant was aware. The plaintiffs were also granted leave to inspect documents produced by two financial institutions. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs associated with these orders. The orders were made under the Federal Court Rules 2011, specifically Rule 39.32, which governs the entry of orders in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant do forthwith provide to the plaintiffs disclosure and electronic copies of documents created before 1 January 2016 that are in the defendant's possession, custody or control and are within one or more of the categories listed in Annexure A to the orders of Barker J made 26 April 2018 and of which the defendant is aware after a reasonable search conducted in good faith.
2. The defendant do forthwith provide to the plaintiffs disclosure and electronic copies of documents within one or more of the categories listed in Annexure B to the orders of Barker J made 26 April 2018 and of which the defendant is aware after a reasonable search conducted in good faith (save for documents in category 6 in Annexure B).
3. The plaintiffs have leave to inspect the documents produced by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd in response to subpoenas issued in these proceedings.
4. The defendant do pay the plaintiffs costs of and concerning the issues determined by these orders, including the costs of preparing written submissions, to be assessed if not agreed.
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.