Lake Cumbeline P/L v Effem Foods P/L T/as Uncle Bens of Australia

[1994] FCA 721

JUDGMENT No. ... Z~.L....J .?k,..

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)	NO. NG 129/90
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN :

LAKE CUWBERLINE PTY LTD 6 ORS

Applicant

AND :

EFFEM FOODS PTY LIMITED T/AS

CORAM:	SACKVILLE
PLACE :	SYDNEY  I1 OCT 1994
DATE :	4 OCTOBER 1994

AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL

REGISTRY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is a directions hearing which, as I understand was set down some tlme ago in anticlpatlon of a hearing commencing next Monday. The hearing is scheduled to last for four weeks, but I have been told that on at least one view it may go longer. The purpose of the directions hearing was to deal with any outstanding matters that may need resolution before the hearing commences. The first matter concerns directions that were made on 12 August 1994 for the preparation of a bundle of documents. The directions contemplatedthatthe applicants would prepare and flle with the court by tomorrow, 5 October 1994, two complete bundles of the documents duly paginated and indexed.

divided into sections; namely, those to be admitted by consent and those objected to by one or more of the partles. I have now

The orders also contemplated that those documents would be

been told that the bundles have not been prepared. However, the respondents propose to place a bundle of the documents they wish to tender in the applicant's hands by 5 pm tomorrow, that 1s 5 October 1994.

In the circumstances it seems to me that the sensible course is to dlrect the respondent to provlde to the applicants two coples of the documents it wlshes to be lncluded in the bundle by 5 pm tomorrow, 5 ,October 1994. That should be done by provldlng the documents iq chronological order with an index givlng the date and description of such documents.

RECORDED NOT TRANSCRIBED

I direct the respondents to prepare and flle wlth the court by

3 pm on 7 October 1994 two complete copies of the bundle of

documents, duly paginated and indexed. I direct the respondents to lndicate so far as it is feaslble to do so, those documents

whlch are to be admltted by consent to the parties and those	whlch are to be objected to by one or more of the parties. I
recognise that it may not be possible because of the tlme constraints to do this exhaustively. Accordingly, I direct that a further document be prepared to be handed to Hls Honour at the commencement of the proceedings on Monday, 10 October 1994, that speclfles those documents that are'to be admitted by consent and those documents whlch are to be objected to by one or more of the parties.
The second matter that was raised with me concerns an order for discovery made by Sheppard J on 5 September 1994. I am informed by W Smith of counsel who appears for the respondents that the orders made on that day have not been complied with. Certain documents have been produced in response to the order for discovery, but these represent an incomplete compliance, so Mr Smith has told me, with the terms of the order made by Sheppard
J. I have indicated that if there is a further matter to be
dealt with relating to the question of discovery, it can be raised with me later in the week since I am the duty judge for this week. Accordingly, all that needs to be done on that issue is to grant the parties liberty to apply. I will not provide any timing for that. I will leave it to the good sense of the parties to do that in time that enables each of them to be present.
RECORDED NOT TRANSCRIBED
I note that M r Smith handed up a copy of a schedule that related
return that to h ~ m . I shall also return to Mr Whittle a copy of to the proceedings before Sheppard J on 5 September, I shall
the short minutes of order that were made on 12 August 1994.

I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice

Sackville.	/	1 -
Associate:

,'l

Dated:  5 bctober, 1994

Heard:	4 October 1994
Place:	Sydney
Decision:	5 October 1994
Appearances:	Mr Whlttle instructed by Blake Dawson
Waldron appeared for the applicant.
Mr Smlth instructed by Sly & Weigall appeared for the respondent.