Instant Colour P/L v Canon Australia P/L

[1994] FCA 18

l g 9Y-

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. I ........ ....

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALA )

l )

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	No. WAG 93 of 1991
GENERAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N :

INSTANT COLOUR PTY LTD

AND ORS

First Applicant

- and -

CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

AND ANOR

First

JUDGE :	Heerey J
m:	31 January 1994
PLACE :	Perth

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants seek further discovery of documents,

in broad terms. However, many of the documents sought might

be considered relevant and properly discoverable were it not

for the fact that, on 16 April 1993, this matter was set down

for trial at the request of the applicants. On that day the

.I

No explanation has been proffered for the non-compliance with	it. T am satisfied that although the further discovery sought
might be helpful to the applicants, it would impose onerous burdens on the respondent. But most importantly to my mind, there has been a nonchalant disregard of an order of the court and a quite culpable delay in getting this matter onto trial, indeed removing it from trial when a date was fixed last year.
So for those reasons the notice of motion seeking further discovery is dismissed.
An application was made for leave to appeal. It is well established by the decision of the High Court in Adam P. Brown
v Philip Morris (1981) 148 CLR 170 that leave to appeal in
interlocutory matters of practice and procedure will, in effect, rarely be given. I do not suggest that is the language of the High Court - the report is not available to me at the moment - but certainly there is a substantial barrier against the granting of leave in such matters.
history of this case, I should apply that principle and should I am persuaded here that, because of the long and tortured
not allow the further progress of the case to be delayed by the making of any appeal. And I am not satisfied that any irreversible prejudice will be suffered to the applicants by the refusing of that leave.
I note that it is not now open to the applicants to seek leave to appeal from a Full Court: Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Pacific
Holdings) Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1988) 18 FCR 424.
I order that the applicants pay the costs of this application including the hearing on 9 December last.

District Registrar made a direction that the parties were at liberty to make any further in~erlocutory application by 7 May 1993. The respondents, in fact, did apply for further

discovery but no such application was made by the appl' ~cants.

Litigants in this court have to understand that orders of the court are to be taken seriously. This was a serious order.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour

Mr Justice Heerey.

Dat 31 January 1994

ADDearances

Counsel for the applicant:	Mr N A Moshinsky QC
Solicitor for the applicant:	Blair Doncon & CO
Counsel for the respondent:	Mr D Martino
Solicitor for the respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of hearing:	31 January 1994

JUDGES CHAMBERS,

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA,

\"re 450 L lTEE B O W STREET.

-> AUSTRALIA 1- M"0U"S" 3pLl

J>>:>::>~;<<<<:<d- Fe ruary 1994

Sonia Cornale
Federal Court of Australia
Principal Registry
Law Courts Building
Queens Square

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sonia,

Instant Colour Ptv Ltd & Ors v Canon Australia Ptv Ltd & Anor

NO. WAG 93 of 1991

I enclose a copy of the judgment delivered by his Honour Mr

Justice Heerey in the above matter on 31 January 1994.

This judgment is not for general distribution.

Associate to Heerey J