Oroton P/L v Lifinia P/L

[1993] FCA 476

4-76

JUDGMENT No. ..... ,... ..,.. ,,,,f ...,e,,,,,e,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	NO. NG 718 of 1992

)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN :  PROTON PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AND :  LIFINIA PTY LIMITED

30 June 1993

20 JuL 1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FEDERAL COUR I

AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL

LOCKHART J. REGISTRY

There is an issue between the parties

interlocutory matters that relate essentially to discovery. The respondent has given discovery by filing and serving its list of documents and the applicant challenges the sufficiency of that discovery. What the applicant says has not been discovered are documents which it claims must exist, namely, those relating to the manufacture or importation, supply or sale of certain handbags bearing the mark, "City Gear" and which are referred to in documents numbered 57, 58, and 66 in the respondents list of documents filed on 14 January 1993.

be discovered. If in fact, of course, the handbags in question	exist and that they are relevant to issues in the case and should
Accordingly, I propose to make orders in substance in accordance with the short minutes handed to me by counsel for the applicant.

Whether or not these handbags are imported by the respondent or are made by it or by others on its behalf in Australia, of course I do not know, but it does seem to me that the documents of the kind which the applicant seeks to have access to must

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of tha o on our able

Mr. Justice Lockhart'.

/7

' 1,

Associate >-

Dated: 30 June 1993

Counsel for the Applicant A H Bowne

Counsel for the Respondent	:	J Baird
Date of Hearing	30 June 1993
Date of Judgment	30 June 1993