In the application of John Dee (Export) Pty. Limited

Case [1988] ATPT 3


NOT FOR CIRCULATION

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

IN THE TRADE PRACTICES TRIBUNAL

No. NSW 5 of 1987

IN THE APPLICATION OF JOHN DEE (EXPORT) PTY. LIMITED

& ORS.

Applicants

ORDER MADE BY:

LOCKHART J. (PRESIDENT)

WHERE ORDER MADE:

SYDNEY

DATE OF ORDER:

29 AUGUST 1988

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT

Leave to issue the summons directed to the solicitors for John Dee (Export) Pty. Limited to produce on 1 September 1988 the copies of all documents inspected by the solicitors for John Dee (Export) Pty. Limited in the course of discovery, together with all notes and references made in relation to or regarding the contents of those documents or the documents themselves, be refused.

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

IN THE TRADE PRACTICES TRIBUNAL

NO. NSW 5 of 1987

IN THE APPLICATION OF JOHN DEE

(EXPORT) PTY. LIMITED & ORS.

Applicants

29 August 1988

REASONS FOR DECISION

LOCKHART J. (President)

In this matter I have been asked by the applicants for authorisation, Elders IXL Limited ("Elders"), Dalgety Farmers Limited ("Dalgetys") and Primac Association Limited ("Primac") to issue a summons directed to the solicitors for John Dee (Export) Pty. Ltd. ("John Dee") to produce on 1 September 1988, in substance, the copies of all documents inspected by the solicitors for John Dee in the course of discovery, together with all notes and references made in relation to or regarding the contents of those documents *or

the documents themselves. The date on which the summons is sought to be made returnable is the date which I have fixed for the return of summonses to witnesses to produce documents on all sides. It is intended that on that occasion the Tribunal will deal with questions of privilege, with any objections to production of documents, and with any applications to set aside summonses.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal touching the question of the issue of the summons. The issue of the summons is opposed by John Dee. In my view, the issue of the summons which is sought would place a burden upon John Dee and its legal advisers which would seriously impair preparation of John Dee's case in relation to the application for interim authorisation by Elders, Dalgety and Primac, the hearing of which is to commence next week.

Other courses have been suggested to the Tribunal.

One

possibility is that a copy of each of the documents which is held by solicitors or counsel for John Dee could be made available by the solicitors for John Dee to the solicitors for Elders Dalgety and Primac. However that process of copying has been estimated to require some two weeks, and such copies are only offered by John Dee on the basis that the cost of the copying be borne by Elders, Dalgetys and Primac.

& check list, as it is called, of discovered documents

has been made available to the solicitors for Elders, ~ a l g e t ~ s

and Primac this morning.

That list does not detail the

or

contents of files mentioned thereid delineate the documents

inspected other than by general descriptions.

It is suggested by counsel for Elders, Dalgetys and Primac that documents inspected by John Dee may have gone beyond the permissible ambit of discovery and inspection. I say nothing about that question, since there is no evidence before the Tribunal either in support of or contrary to that proposition. It may be that these matters will be relevant in due course when any further question of discovery arises.

If that is so then the issue can be agitated in the usual way and evidence adduced at that point.

As the matter stands at present, I decline to issue the summons in question for the time being.

I certify that this and the preceding two

(2) pages are a true copy of the reasons

for d e c i s i o n herein of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Lockhart.

Associate h

'Y

k&

.

,

.

-

Date: 29 August 1988

Counsel f o r John Dee

( E x p o r t s )

Mr.

C.A.

Sweeney Q.C.

w i t h

P t y .

Limited:

Mr.

M .

Cashion

S o l i c i t o r s f o r John

Dee

( E x p o r t s )

Messrs .

A l l e n A l l e n

&

Hemsley

P ty .

L imi ted

Counsel

f o r

E l d e r s

I X L

L imi t ed ,

Da lge ty Farmers Limited and

Primac A s s o c i a t i o n Limited:

Mr.

N.

Cotman

S o l i c i t o r s

f o r

E l d e r s

I X L

L imi t ed ,

Da lge ty

Farmers

Limited

and

Messrs .

S l y &

R u s s e l l

Primac

A s s o c i a t i o n

Limi ted :

Date of Hearing:

29 August 1988

Date

o f D e c i s i o n :

29

August

1988

Details
AGLC
In the application of John Dee (Export) Pty. Limited and Ors [1988] ATPT 3
Case
[1988] ATPT 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Trade Practices Tribunal, Lockhart J (President) heard an application from John Dee (Export) Pty. Limited and others against Elders IXL Limited, Dalgety Farmers Limited, and Primac Association Limited. The applicants sought an order to compel John Dee's solicitors to produce all documents inspected during the discovery process, along with any notes or references made regarding those documents. This request was made in the context of an ongoing dispute where Elders, Dalgetys, and Primac were seeking interim authorisation, with the hearing set to commence shortly.

The central legal issue before Lockhart J was whether the summons should be issued to compel the production of the requested documents. The applicants argued that the documents might be relevant to the case, potentially extending beyond the scope of permissible discovery. John Dee opposed the summons, arguing that issuing it at that time would unduly burden their preparation for the upcoming hearing. Lockhart J considered the potential impact on John Dee's ability to prepare their case and the feasibility of alternative measures, such as providing copies of the documents, which John Dee offered to do at the applicants' expense.

Lockhart J concluded that issuing the summons at that juncture would impose an undue burden on John Dee and potentially interfere with their ability to adequately prepare for the hearing. The President noted that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicants' concerns that the documents might exceed the scope of permissible discovery, and that such issues could be addressed at a later stage if necessary. Therefore, Lockhart J decided to decline issuing the summons at that time. Instead, Lockhart J suggested that the matter could be revisited during the course of the hearing if it became pertinent to the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.