Kaji Australia Pty Ltd v Glover (No 2)

The defendants in the Federal Court of Australia were Kaji Australia Pty Ltd, and the plaintiffs were Glover and another. The plaintiffs sought an order for the defendants to provide further and better discovery of documents, claiming the defendants had failed to undertake a reasonable search for relevant documents. The plaintiffs also sought to cross-examine the deponent on the affidavit of discovery and to subpoena the deponent to provide documents previously in their possession. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable search had not been undertaken, and that the deponent’s credibility could not be challenged.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had made out a sufficient case for the defendants to provide further and better discovery of documents. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to cross-examine the deponent on the affidavit of discovery and to subpoena the deponent to provide documents formerly in their possession. The court had to assess whether the plaintiffs had established a proper basis for challenging the deponent’s credibility. The court considered the nature and extent of the search undertaken by the defendants, the form and content of the affidavit of documents, and whether the plaintiffs had established grounds for questioning the deponent’s credibility.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established that the defendants had failed to undertake a reasonable search for documents. The affidavit of documents provided by the defendants was deemed to be in the appropriate form, and the plaintiffs had not shown that the deponent was not credible. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to cross-examine the deponent on the affidavit of discovery or to subpoena the deponent to provide documents formerly in their possession. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a proper basis for challenging the deponent’s credibility.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for further and better discovery, for cross-examination of the deponent, and for the issuance of a subpoena to the deponent. The court did not make any orders for costs.