Mykytowych v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd
[1995] FCA 115
•3 MARCH 1995
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - application for undertakings prior to inspection - implied obligation with respect to discovery
Mykytowych & Ors v Cut Price Deli Pty. Limited & Ors
No QG18 of 1994
Kiefel J Brisbane 3 March 1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. QG18 of 1994
BETWEEN:
BOHODAR MYKYTOWYCH and LESIA MYKYTOWYCH
First Applicants
AND:
VANUXI PTY. LIMITED
Second Applicant
AND:
CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED
First Respondent
AND:
CUT PRICE DELI FRANCHISING PTY. LIMITED
Second Respondent
AND:
ENZO SGAMBELLONE
Third Respondent
AND:
HARRY ALBERT MALOVANY
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Kiefel J.
DATE OF ORDER: 3 March 1995
WHERE MADE: Brisbane
MINUTES OF ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The respondents' motion be dismissed.
The respondents' pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the motion to be taxed.
NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. QG18 of 1994
BETWEEN:
BOHODAR MYKYTOWYCH and LESIA MYKYTOWYCH
First Applicants
AND:
VANUXI PTY. LIMITED
Second Applicant
AND:
CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED
First Respondent
AND:
CUT PRICE DELI FRANCHISING PTY. LIMITED
Second Respondent
AND:
ENZO SGAMBELLONE
Third Respondent
AND:
HARRY ALBERT MALOVANY
Fourth Respondent
CORAM:Kiefel J.
DATE:3 March 1995
PLACE:Brisbane
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondents seek orders which would condition inspection of documents by the applicants to the provision of undertakings by them and their witnesses. I do not consider that any proper basis has been shown for concluding that the parties here do not consider themselves bound by the obligation implied with respect to discovery. What I have been asked to do is to draw an inference with respect to these proceedings from a suggestion in other proceedings (Novamaze Pty. Ltd. & Ors v. Cut Price Deli Pty. Limited & Ors No QG149/94 - application to strike out heard at the same time) that there was a difficulty with confidentiality, but which I consider to be unfounded.
There was no suggestion that the documents are particularly commercially sensitive and no other basis was suggested.
The motion of the respondents to the action will be dismissed, and there will be an order that the respondents to the action pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to that motion to be taxed.
I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.
Associate
Date:3 March 1995
Counsel for the applicants: Mr C.E.K. Hampson QC and Mr T.W. Quinn
Solicitors for the applicants: Messrs Lynch & Company
Counsel for the respondents: Mr J. Hamilton QC and Mr P.W. Hackett
Solicitors for the respondents: Messrs Snelgrove & Partners
Date of Hearing: 3 March 1995
Place of Hearing: Brisbane
Date of Judgment: 3 March 1995
0
0
0