Meagher v Zanjani

Case [2016] FCA 1226


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Meagher v Zanjani [2016] FCA 1226

File number: QUD 308 of 2016
Judge: EDELMAN J
Date of judgment: 13 October 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for standard discovery and springing orders – Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.23(2) – defendant currently unable to comply with orders for discover
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.23(2)
Cases cited:

Engineered Thermal Systems Pty Limited v Salmon, In the Matter of Salmon & Speck Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2012] FCA 1159

Ferella v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2013] FCA 1319

Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227

Wu v Avin Operations Pty Ltd (ACN 076 956 913) [2006] FCA 36

Date of hearing: 13 October 2016
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 12
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Ms Symenovych of JHK Legal
Solicitor for the Defendant: Mr PW Evans of McKays

ORDERS

QUD 308 of 2016
BETWEEN:

ANNE MEAGHER AND TERRENCE JOHN ROSE AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF LINMEL ACCOMMODATION SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 159 758 960

Plaintiff

AND:

HAMID HAKAKZADEH ZANJANI TRADING AS TARQUIN CONSTRUCTIONS ABN 58 193 173 006

Defendant

JUDGE:

EDELMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The plaintiff’s interlocutory application filed 5 October 2016 be dismissed.

2.The defendant file and serve his Genuine Steps Statement on the plaintiff by 20 October 2016.

3.The matter be listed for directions on a date after 9 November 2016.

4.The defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff of the interlocutory application filed 5 October 2016.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EDELMAN J:

  1. This matter is in the docket of Greenwood J. In his Honour’s absence, the application by the plaintiff Liquidators has come before me. In the circumstances of delays by the defendant, Mr Zanjani, these short reasons record, for the future progress of the matter, (i) why the principal orders sought by the Liquidators were not made this afternoon, and (ii) what the parties have been told about the circumstances leading up to and beyond January 2017 for the progress of this matter.

  2. The Liquidators seek orders that Mr Zanjani give standard discovery, with springing, or self-executing, orders for judgment if he fails to do so.

  3. The Liquidators seek orders requiring Mr Zanjani (i) to file and serve a list of documents and an affidavit verifying their disclosure within five business days, and (ii) to comply with a request for inspection of any document that is included in the Liquidators’ list of documents, and that is in Mr Zanjani’s control, within three business days of service of the request. Mr Zanjani failed to comply with similar orders when the list of documents was due by 19 September 2016. He provided 250 pages of documents which were located by associates in Australia but…

Continue reading Meagher v Zanjani

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Meagher v Zanjani [2016] FCA 1226
Case
[2016] FCA 1226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meagher v Zanjani involved an application for standard discovery and springing orders made by the plaintiff against the defendant. The matter was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought discovery of certain documents from the defendant, alleging that the defendant was currently unable to comply with the orders for discovery due to the unavailability of the documents. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had not followed the appropriate procedural steps and that the application should be dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for discovery and springing orders was valid and whether the defendant's inability to comply with the orders was genuine. The court also needed to consider the appropriate procedural steps that should have been followed in this situation. The court examined the Federal Court Rules 2011 and relevant case law to determine the correct course of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's application did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court held that the plaintiff had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that the defendant had an opportunity to provide a Genuine Steps Statement before making the application. The court also found that the defendant had not demonstrated that he was currently unable to comply with the orders for discovery. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application and ordered the defendant to file and serve his Genuine Steps Statement on the plaintiff. The matter was listed for directions, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s interlocutory application filed 5 October 2016 be dismissed.

2. The defendant file and serve his Genuine Steps Statement on the plaintiff by 20 October 2016.

3. The matter be listed for directions on a date after 9 November 2016.

4. The defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff of the interlocutory application filed 5 October 2016.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.