Ibrahim v Highline (No.2)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IBRAHIM v HIGHLINE (No.2) [2009] FMCA 297

TRADE PRACTICES – Misleading and deceptive conduct – design and construct tender – plans.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Request for particular discovery and production of plans.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s.52
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.45(1)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.14.02

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Limited (2007) 210 FLR 314; [2007] FMCA 639
Ibrahim v Highline and Anor [2008] FMCA 1146
Ibrahim v Worken Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FMCA 156
Goodall v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 218

Applicant: TAREK IBRAHIM

Respondent: HIGHLINE

File Number: PEG 62 of 2008

Judgment of: Lucev FM

Hearing date: 2 April 2009

Date of Last Submission: 2 April 2009

Delivered at: Perth

Delivered on: 2 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Mr T Ibrahim appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L Hager

Solicitors for the Respondent: Metaxas Hager

ORDERS

1. By 4pm on 6 April 2009 the applicant file an affidavit of discovery specifying the building plans to be relied upon by the applicant at the hearing and attaching legible copies of the plans so specified as annexures to the affidavit.

2. Liberty to apply urgently in the event of non-compliance with above Order 1.

3. The respondent’s time for compliance with Order 2 of Orders of the Court of 30 January 2009 be extended to 4pm on 20 April 2009.

4. The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $1455 to be paid by 4pm on 30 April 2009.

5. The applicant be granted leave to appeal from today’s proceedings.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 62 of 2008

TAREK IBRAHIM

Applicant

And

HIGHLINE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore – edited from the transcript)

1. The application in the case made on 27 March 2009 by the respondent seeks orders in the following terms:

   (1)The applicant provide the respondent with a copy of the building plans prepared by the applicant that the applicant will rely on at trial.

   (2)Alternatively, the applicant identify for the respondent the building plans prepared by the applicant that the applicant will rely on at trial.

   (3)The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this application.

2. The applicant is essentially seeking discovery and production, or at least discovery, of building plans to be relied upon by the applicant at hearing.

3. The substantive application in this matter is an application in respect of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trades Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in relation to design work allegedly performed under contract by the applicant for the respondent in relation to a design and construct tender for another entity, Worken Pty Ltd,[1] in respect of which there is another application which will be heard together with this application in late May 2009.

   [1] “Worken”.

4. One of the issues in the proceedings is whether the applicant’s design was “taken” and used by the respondent and Worken without appropriate remuneration and contrary…