Parkin v O'Sullivan

Case [2006] FCA 1413

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Parkin v O’Sullivan [2006] FCA 1413

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – adverse security assessment – whether intention in Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) that subject of adverse security assessment not be permitted discovery of it – whether discovery would be fishing – exercise of discretion

Held: There is no prohibition in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) on the subject of an adverse security assessment having discovery of it. Discovery would not involve impermissible fishing. Discretion exercised to allow discovery.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth), ss 4, 6–8, 17A, 20, 35–38, 39A
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s116
Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth), ss 8, 11
Federal Court Rules, O 15, 15A
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 39A

Church of Scientology Inc v Woodward (1982) 154 CLR 25 distinguished
Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280 cited
Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 426 cited
WA Pines Pty Ltd  v Bannerman (1980) 41 FLR 175 cited
Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd v Amalgamated Metal Workers Union (1990) 51 IR 113 applied

THOMAS SCOTT PARKIN v PAUL O'SULLIVAN (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF SECURITY)

VID 1594 OF 2005

MOHAMMED YUSSEF SAGAR and MUHAMMAD FAISAL v PAUL O'SULLIVAN (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF SECURITY)

VID 188 OF 2006

SUNDBERG J
3 NOVEMBER 2006
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1594 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

THOMAS SCOTT PARKIN
Applicant

AND:

PAUL O'SULLIVAN (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF SECURITY)
Respondent

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties confer as to the appropriate orders for discovery.

2.If by 17 November 2006 the parties are unable to agree on appropriate orders for discovery, they should each by 1 December 2006 file written submissions as to the orders that should be made.

3.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 188 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMAD YUSSEF SAGAR
MUHAMMAD FAISAL
Applicants

AND:

PAUL O'SULLIVAN (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF SECURITY)
Respondent

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties confer as to the appropriate orders for discovery.

2.If by 17 November 2006 the parties are unable to agree on appropriate orders for discovery, they should each by 1 December 2006 file written submissions as to the orders that should be made.

3.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1594 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

THOMAS SCOTT PARKIN
Applicant

AND:

PAUL O'SULLIVAN (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR‑GENERAL OF SECURITY)
Respondent

IN THE…

Continue reading Parkin v O'Sullivan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parkin v O'Sullivan [2006] FCA 1413
Case
[2006] FCA 1413
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parkin v O'Sullivan involves the applicant, Parkin, seeking certain documents from the respondent, O'Sullivan. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centres on the discovery of documents that Parkin claims are necessary for the fair determination of an underlying proceeding. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the orders sought by Parkin for the discovery of documents were appropriate and necessary.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature and scope of the discovery sought by Parkin and the extent to which it was relevant to the underlying proceeding. The court held that the orders sought by Parkin were overly broad and did not adequately justify the necessity for such extensive discovery. Consequently, the court ruled that the orders were not appropriate in their current form. The court further directed that the parties should confer and attempt to agree on more specific and narrowly tailored orders for discovery. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, each party was required to file written submissions by a specified date outlining their respective positions on the appropriate discovery orders.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of proportionality and necessity in the discovery process, ensuring that the rights of both parties are balanced against the needs of the litigation. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application for discovery.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties confer as to the appropriate orders for discovery.

2. If by 17 November 2006 the parties are unable to agree on appropriate orders for discovery, they should each by 1 December 2006 file written submissions as to the orders that should be made.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs.

1. The parties confer as to the appropriate orders for discovery.

2. If by 17 November 2006 the parties are unable to agree on appropriate orders for discovery, they should each by 1 December 2006 file written submissions as to the orders that should be made.

3. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs.

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

SUNDBERG J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.