Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2003] FCA 385

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] FCA 385
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for further discovery relating to document discovered by fifth respondent in County Court proceeding – application opposed by respondents – implied undertaking not to use discovered document for collateral purposes – document sought to be used in this proceeding – question as to relevance of document discovered – nature of document – whether Court should inspect document
Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280 referred to
Distillers Co v Times Newspaper [1974] 3 WLR 728 referred to
Murex Diagnostics v Chiron Corporation (1995) 62 FCR 424 referred to
Trade Practices Commission v Santos (1993) 42 FCR 203 cited
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10 referred to
Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited [2000] FCA 1389 distinguished
Spire v Cuddles ‘N’ Mum (Franchise) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1563 referred to
Esso Australia Resources v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 referred to
Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 cited
National Crime Authority v S (1991) 29 FCR 203 cited
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 referred to
WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK (for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim) v
CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 074 692 443), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104), CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED, (ACN 064 512 385), KERROD GRANT PARK, OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035), CHRISTOPHER COOTE, PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (ACN 002 693 512)
V 637 of 2001
TAMBERLIN J
MELBOURNE
30 APRIL 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 637 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK
(for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim)
APPLICANT

AND:

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA)
PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443)
FIRST RESPONDENT

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104)
SECOND RESPONDENT

CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
(ACN 064 512 385)
THIRD RESPONDENT

KERROD GRANT PARK
FOURTH RESPONDENT

OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER COOTE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
(ACN 002 693 512)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The letter of 22 January 1997 referred to in paragraph 3 of the affidavit sworn by Clifford Leslie Pannam on 23 April 2003 be made available to the Court for inspection.
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

V 637 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK
(for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim)
APPLICANT

AND:

CAPITAL…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCA 385
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No 3) was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the availability and inspection of certain documents related to a financial transaction between the parties. The plaintiff, Patrick, sought an order to compel the defendant, Capital Finance Pty Ltd, to produce a specific letter for the court's inspection.

The primary legal issue was whether the court had the authority to order the production of the letter, which was part of the defendants' internal documents, under the circumstances presented. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's right to inspect documents relevant to the case against the defendants' right to protect their internal communications and business information.

The court found that the plaintiff had a legitimate need to inspect the letter, as it was pertinent to the financial transaction in question. It determined that the public interest in the fair administration of justice outweighed the defendants' right to withhold the document. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application, ordering that the letter be made available for inspection. This decision emphasised the importance of transparency and the proper administration of justice in civil proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The letter of 22 January 1997 referred to in paragraph 3 of the affidavit sworn by Clifford Leslie Pannam on 23 April 2003 be made available to the Court for inspection.

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

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 637 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM GEORGE DOUGHTY PATRICK (for himself and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim) APPLICANT
AND:	CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 692 443) FIRST RESPONDENT CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 074 352 104) SECOND RESPONDENT CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 512 385) THIRD RESPONDENT KERROD GRANT PARK FOURTH RESPONDENT OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (ABN 073 598 035) FIFTH RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER COOTE SIXTH RESPONDENT PHILLIP EMANUEL PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (ACN 002 693 512) SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE