Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales v; North Cronulla Investments Pty Ltd

[1999] FCA 971

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales v
North Cronulla Investments Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 971

MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v

NORTH CRONULLA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD & ORS

N201 OF 1999

EMMETT J

5 JULY 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N201 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Applicant
AND:	NORTH CRONULLA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 003 086 824) First Respondent
MG & AM MARKETING SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 084 995 148) Second Respondent
MARK HENRY Third Respondent
DGA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 002 952 794) Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The Notice to Produce dated 28 June 1999 issued by the respondent be set aside.

2.        The respondents pay the costs of the motion filed by the applicant on 2 July 1999.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N201 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Applicant
AND:	NORTH CRONULLA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 003 086 824) First Respondent
MG & AM MARKETING SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 084 995 148) Second Respondent
MARK HENRY Third Respondent
DGA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 002 952 794) Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	5 JULY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondents have served a notice to produce on the applicant, requiring production of:

   “All documents including (but not limited to) correspondence, memoranda, file notes, summaries, computer records or other data recording complaints received by the Applicant, its servants or agents, in respect of deficiencies or delays experienced by members of the public in utilising the applicant’s Greenslip Helpline telephone service or worldwide web greenslip service.”

2. In its statement of claim, the applicant alleges that the manner in which the respondents are conducting their Green Slip Hot Line is misleading and deceptive and in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.  In support of that contention, the applicant has foreshadowed that it intends to rely on evidence of complaints made to it by prospective users of the respondents’ service.  The respondents contend that, if that material is admissible, the respondents ought to be entitled to adduce evidence of complaints in respect of the Greenslip Helpline conducted by the applicant.

3. At the moment, I am not presently convinced that evidence of complaints will be relevant in relation to either matters.  However, the notice to produce is unlimited as to time and it is clear, in my opinion, that material relating to complaints from the time when the Helpline service began would not be relevant to the issue before me. 

4. Accordingly, I order that the notice to produce be set aside.  However, if, in the course of the trial, it appears that a more limited class of documents may be relevant, I will give leave to the respondent to issue a further more restricted notice to produce.  I order the respondents to pay the costs of the motion.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             5 July 1999

Counsel for the Applicant:	M.K. Minehan
Solicitor for the Applicant:	McCabes Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondents:	N.F. Francey
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Elliot Tuthill
Date of Hearing:	5 July 1999
Date of Judgment:	5 July 1999