Julstar Pty Ltd v Hart Trading Pty Ltd

The case of Julstar Pty Ltd v Hart Trading Pty Ltd involves a dispute over the discovery of documents between the parties. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the consideration at a directions hearing of an application in relation to categories of documents to be discovered by the parties. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of the documents to be discovered and whether certain categories of documents should be struck out.

The court considered whether the respondents, Hart Trading Pty Ltd (HT) and Hart, had any discovery obligations in relation to specific matters. The applicants argued that virtually all relevant documents would be discovered by other parties, making the discovery process duplicatory and potentially saving costs. The court held that it was appropriate for the applicants to have discovery from HT and Hart, and it was suggested that they might undertake an examination of the proposed verified list formulated by other parties and then form a view on whether that list reflects the entirety of the documents otherwise discoverable in their hands. If the list accurately reflects the discoverable documents, a relevant deponent can adopt the list as an accurate verified list. This approach may result in a supplemental list of documents not contained within the other list. However, HT and Hart were obliged to verify a list of documents in their possession or control relevant to the questions in issue in the proceeding.

In its decision, the court struck out category 8(b) as it had been relocated to fall within the scope of category 3(b). The court also directed the parties to formulate a proposed order reflecting the content of these reasons and submit the draft order to the Associate within seven days. The court reserved costs.

ORDERS:
1. The parties confer with a view to formulating a draft order for discovery of documents having regard to the reasons for judgment arising out of the directions hearing on 7 June 2011, and submit such draft to the Associate to Justice Greenwood within seven days for the consideration of the Court.
2. Costs are reserved.