Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd

Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an order requiring TNT Australia Pty Ltd (the first respondent) and others (the respondents) to admit certain facts for the purpose of the proceeding under Order 18 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The application was dismissed by the court, which held that the court should not be involved in interlocutory processes that could lead to obstruction, delay, vexation, and increased litigation costs. The court held that the rules do not provide for objection to any notice or any part of a notice and the rule does not compel any response. The court further held that the essence of the applicant's complaint was that many of the matters in relation to which admissions are sought are not facts within the meaning of Order 18 Rule 2. This may be so, but the applicant can make its own judgment as to that, and act accordingly. If the matter specified is not a fact, then there will be no implied admission and no costs consequence.

The court held that the question as to whether an admission has been made by virtue of Order 18 Rule 2 can be best decided by the trial judge when and if the matter becomes material to the trial and in the context of the trial. The question of the costs sanction is also best considered when the result of the trial is known. The court held that there is no occasion to involve the Court in giving judicial advice to parties such as these and that parties and their legal representatives must take responsibility for the conduct of litigation. The court held that each opportunity to involve the Court in interlocutory applications leads to a possibility of obstruction, delay, and vexation, and adds to the cost of litigation.

The court dismissed the notice of motion of the applicant filed on 14 July 2000 and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the first, second, third, and fourth respondents of the motion. The court held that it should not be involved in interlocutory processes that could lead to obstruction, delay, vexation, and increased litigation costs. The court held that the parties and their legal representatives must take responsibility for the conduct of litigation and that each opportunity to involve the Court in interlocutory applications leads to a possibility of obstruction, delay, and vexation, and adds to the cost of litigation.