CATCHWORDS
Practice and Procedure - Discovery - Use of document discovered in action for breach of contract and contravention of Trade Practices Act to frame new cause of action in defamation and to join added respondent - whether leave of the court required - whether proposed use of document was for ulterior or collateral purpose - circumstances relevant to court's discretion to grant leave to use the document.
Wilden Pump & Engineering Company v Fusfeld [1985] FSR 581
Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 57 FCR 360
Sybron Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc [1985] Ch 299
Halcon International Inc v Shell Transport and Trading Co [1979] RPC 97
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
ARNOLD MANN v MEDICAL DEFENCE UNION LIMITED
VG 131 of 1993
Ryan J
Melbourne
7 February 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 131 of 1993
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: Arnold Mann
(Applicant)
AND: Medical Defence Union Limited
(Respondent)
CORAM: Ryan J
DATE: 7 February 1997
PLACE: Melbourne
MINUTES OF ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
That the leave granted to the applicant by the order of Ryan J of 5 February 1997 to file and serve a further amended statement of claim be rescinded.
That the applicant have leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim in the form of the draft which is exhibit "SK2" to the affidavit of Patrick Simon Kearney excluding paragraphs 52, 53, 54 and 55 and the joinder as a respondent of Craig Martin Lilienthal.
That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion on notice dated 5 September 1996.
That paragraph 1 of this order be stayed until 4.15pm on 28 February 1997 or further order.
That paragraph 3 of the order of Ryan J of 5 February 1997 be varied by substituting for the date "7 February 1997" the date "28 February 1997".
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 131 of 1993
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: Arnold Mann
(Applicant)
AND: Medical Defence Union Limited
(Respondent)
CORAM: Ryan J
DATE: 7 February 1997
PLACE: Melbourne
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RYAN J: By his amended statement of claim, the applicant, who is a medical practitioner, has invoked causes of action for breach of contract and contravention of the Trade Practices Act against the respondent ("the MDU"). In essence, the applicant's complaint is that the MDU has failed to pay his legal costs or indemnify him in respect of those costs in connection with an action which he instituted in the Supreme…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mann v Medical Defence Union Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1997] FCA 45
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether leave was needed to use the discovered document for the defamation claim and, if so, whether leave should be granted. The court acknowledged an implied undertaking that documents discovered in litigation would only be used for the purposes of that litigation. However, it was established that using discovered documents to add new causes of action or parties was permissible if it related to the prosecution or defence of the case. The court found that a defamation claim was collateral to Mann's original claims for breach of contract and contravention of the Trade Practices Act. The defamation claim involved different issues and potential liabilities than the original claims, making it an inappropriate use of the discovered document. The court concluded that granting leave for the defamation claim would not be in the special circumstances required and rescinded the earlier leave granted to Mann to file the amended statement of claim. Mann was instead granted leave to file an amended statement of claim excluding the defamation allegations and the joinder of Lilienthal as a respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.