Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd

Case [2009] FCA 695


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kirby v Centro Properties Limited (ACN 078 590 682) [2009] FCA 695

RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED (ACN 078 590 682) and CPT MANAGER LIMITED (ACN 054 494 307)

VID 326 of 2008

RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO RETAIL LIMITED (ACN 114 757 783) and CENTRO MCS MANAGER LIMITED (ACN 051 908 984)

VID 327 of 2008

RYAN J
26 JUNE 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 326 of 2008

BETWEEN:

RICHARD KIRBY
Applicant

AND:

CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED (ACN 078 590 682)
First Respondent

CPT MANAGER LIMITED (ACN 054 494 307)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2009

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion on notice dated 24 December 2008 in relation to policies of insurance be refused.

2.The respondents produce for inspection by the applicant, his counsel and solicitors directly concerned in the conduct of these proceedings and any officer or agent of IMF (Australia) Ltd directly concerned in the conduct or funding of these proceedings the documents identified as confidential in the first tranche of the respondents’ discovery subject to each such person signing an undertaking in the form of Schedule A to this order.

3.The costs of all parties of and incidental to the motion on notice dated 24 December 2008 be reserved.

4.There be liberty to any party or person affected by this order to apply on not less than 48 hours notice in writing to the other party or the parties as the case may be.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


SCHEDULE A

CONFIDENTIALITY UNDERTAKING

I, ………………………………………… undertake to the respondents in Federal Court proceeding No …………………….. (“the proceeding”) in respect of the documents produced by the respondents as an initial tranche of discovery in accordance with the orders made by his Honour Justice Ryan on 17 December 2008 (“the confidential documents”) that:

1.I will not use the confidential documents, or any part of them, or any information contained in them other than for the purposes of the proceeding;

2.Subject to paragraph 4 below, I will not disclose, discuss or enable access to the confidential documents or any part of them or any information contained in them, either directly or indirectly to any person (including any class members or potential class members);

3.I will make all reasonable efforts to store the confidential documents and any documents or records which I make arising from my access to the confidential documents (including copies thereof) in such a way that persons other than those entitled to access them cannot obtain access to them. Without in any way limiting the generality of this undertaking, the reference to documents, records or copies shall include records of information stored electronically;

4.The confidential documents may be disclosed by me to:

a)the Federal Court of Australia and Judges of the Federal…

Continue reading Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd [2009] FCA 695
Case
[2009] FCA 695
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd involved the applicant seeking disclosure of certain documents and insurance policies from the respondents. The matter came before the court which had to consider the nature and extent of the disclosure, particularly regarding the involvement of IMF, an entity involved in funding the litigation on a commercial basis. The primary issue was whether the respondents could insist on certain conditions, including the signing of an undertaking, before permitting the inspection of the confidential documents by the applicant and his legal representatives, as well as officers and agents of IMF.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the disclosure of documents and the rights of parties in litigation, particularly focusing on the balance between the need for disclosure and the protection of confidential information. It highlighted the differences between the professional and ethical constraints that apply to legal representatives and the commercial interests of entities like IMF. The court also noted the importance of managing the risks associated with the wider disclosure of sensitive documents.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that while IMF was involved in the litigation on a commercial basis, it was reasonable for the respondents to seek assurances regarding the disclosure of confidential documents. The court found that requiring an express undertaking from those inspecting the documents was not unreasonable, particularly in light of the potential risks involved. The court ordered that the inspection of the confidential documents could proceed, subject to the signing of the specified undertaking, and that the costs associated with the motions be reserved.

The final orders of the court were that the motion regarding the insurance policies be refused, the respondents were to allow inspection of the confidential documents subject to the signing of an undertaking, and the costs of the motions were to be reserved. Additionally, the court granted liberty for any affected party to apply to vary the order with appropriate notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion on notice dated 24 December 2008 in relation to policies of insurance be refused.

2. The respondents produce for inspection by the applicant, his counsel and solicitors directly concerned in the conduct of these proceedings and any officer or agent of IMF (Australia) Ltd directly concerned in the conduct or funding of these proceedings the documents identified as confidential in the first tranche of the respondents’ discovery subject to each such person signing an undertaking in the form of Schedule A to this order.

3. The costs of all parties of and incidental to the motion on notice dated 24 December 2008 be reserved.

4. There be liberty to any party or person affected by this order to apply on not less than 48 hours notice in writing to the other party or the parties as the case may be.

Note:

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

RYAN J
In light of the High Court’s decision in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif (2006) 229 CLR 386, IMF’s proper role in these proceedings will be limited: see esp, per Callinan and Heydon JJ, at 493. The concerns discussed by French J (as his Honour then was) in QPXS Ltd v Ericsson Australia (No 5) [2007] FCA 244, at [20] then have to be met. Unlike the applicant’s solicitors, IMF is involved in these proceedings on a purely commercial basis: it is, relevantly, in the business of funding and profiting from litigation. It is not constrained by the professional or ethical restraints which bind the parties’ legal representatives. It is, therefore, without imputing to IMF any tendency to impropriety, right for the respondents to be concerned, as French J said, about “the generic risk associated with the wider disclosure of the discovered documents… [They are] is entitled to seek specificity as to the documents to be disclosed and the purpose for which they are to be disclosed”. To require an express undertaking from the relevant officers and agents of IMF is, therefore, not unusual and, in the light of Hearne v Street (supra) is not unreasonable.Conclusion In the result, I shall order that the applicant’s motion on notice dated 24 December 2008 in relation to the insurance policies be refused. In relation to the confidential documents included in the respondents’ first tranche of discovery, I shall order that they may be inspected by the plaintiff and his counsel and solicitors directly concerned in the conduct or funding of these proceedings and to any officer or agent of IMF directly concerned in the conduct of these proceedings subject to each such person signing an express undertaking in the form appended as Schedule A to these reasons. The costs of each party of the said motions on notice dated 24 December 2008 will be reserved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: RYAN J

Full text does not contain this section.