Paynter Dixon (Queensland) Pty Ltd v AHW (Queensland) Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 61 of 1989

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY l
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: PAYNTER DIXON (OUEENSLANDI PTY. LTD.

Applicant

AND: AHW (OUEENSLAND) PTY. LTD.
First Respondent

AND: ADDICOAT HOGARTH WILSON PTY. LTD.
Second Respondent

AND: KEITH FORRESTER DAVIS
Third Respondent

AND: PAUL ELWIN COLLINS
Fourth Respondent

AND BETWEEN: ADDICOAT HOGARTH WILSON PTY. LTD.
First Cross-claimant

AND : KEITH FORRESTER DAVIS and
PAUL ELWIN COLLINS
Second Cross-claimants

AND : AHW (OUEENSLANDI PTY. LTD.
Third Cross-claimant

AND : C.E. HEATH UNDERWRITING AND INSURANCE
jAUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.
First Cross-respondent

REQISTRY

AND: CONSULTING ENGINEERS ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY
OF AUSTRALIA LTD.
Second Cross-respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE W I N G ORDER: PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER: 15 APRIL 1991
WHERE MADE! BRISBANE

04 J U L 1991

FEDERAL COURT OF /
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

I
1.    The application for further discovery be refused.
2.    The parties have leave to file further material, if any, within three weeks.
3.    The matter be set down for hearing at 10.15 am on Monday, 30 September 1991 for three weeks before Pincus J.
4.    Costs of and incidental to today's hearing be costs in the proceedings, except insofar as they are in relation to the application for discovery.
5.   Costs of and incidental to the application for discovery be taxed and paid by the respondent.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 No. QG 61 of 1989
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY 1
GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: PAYNTER DIXON [OUEENSLANDl PTY. LTD.

Applicant

AND: AHW (OUEENSLAND) PTY. LTD.
First Respondent

AND: ADDICOAT HOGARTH WILSON PTY. LTD.

Second Respondent
AND: KEITH FORRESTER DAVIS
Third Respondent

AND: PAUL ELWIN COLLINS
Fourth Respondent

AND BETWEEN: ADDICOAT HOGARTH WILSON PTY. LTD.

First Cross-claimant

AND: KEITH FORRESTER DAVIS and
PAUL ELWIN COLLINS

Second Cross-claimants

AND: AHW IOUEENSLAND) PTY. LTD.

Third Cross-claimant

AND: C.E. HEATH UNDERWRITING AND INSURANCE
JAUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.

First Cross-respondent
AND: CONSULTING ENGINEERS ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY
OF AUSTRALIA LTD.

Second Cross-respondent

CORAM: PINCUS J.

PLACE: BRISBANE

m: 15 APRIL 1991

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter an application is made for further discovery on the basis which I think has been sufficiently explained by Mr. Jackson in the exchange between himself and me. The assertion which the applicant makes is that the buildings in question are sufficiently similar to make the further discovery useful. The respondents on the other side say that that is not so.

I have come to the conclusion that the further discovery should not be ordered, and the reason is that the Court, although it fairly freely will order further discovery in an appropriate case, should not, in my opinion, do so where the question whether the further discovery is proper depends itself on a disputed issue of fact. I should add that it does not seem to me that the case put forward for discovery is particularly strong here, because it is not suggested that these are the only comparable buildings. There is no information, really, as to how many comparable buildings there are. I will refuse the application for further discovery.

I will set the matter down for hearing on Monday, 30 proceedings, except insofar as they related to the application September, before me. The costs of today will be costs in the

for discovery. Those costs will be taxed and paid by the

respondent. I should mention that under the rules of this Court an order in that form does not carry a right to an immediate taxation unless there is a further order, so that the taxation of those costs will await the resolution of the whole matter.

I c e r t i f y that t h e two preceding pages are a true copy o f the reasons f o r

judgment herein o f h i s

Honour M r . Jus t i ce Pincus.
Associate

The case of Paynter Dixon (Queensland) Pty Ltd v AHW (Queensland) Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the Queensland District Registry. The applicant, Paynter Dixon (Queensland) Pty Ltd, sought an order for further discovery from the respondents, AHW (Queensland) Pty Ltd, Addicoat Hogarth Wilson Pty Ltd, Keith Forrester Davis, and Paul Elwin Collins. The application for further discovery was made on the basis that the buildings in question were sufficiently similar, potentially making the additional information useful. However, the respondents argued against the necessity of further discovery, claiming it was not appropriate due to the disputed nature of the facts involved.

The court had to determine whether the application for further discovery was justified, considering the contested issue of fact about the similarity of the buildings. Pincus J concluded that the court should not order further discovery when the propriety of such an order hinges on a disputed issue of fact. Additionally, the applicant's case for discovery was deemed not particularly strong as it did not establish that these were the only comparable buildings, nor did it provide information on the number of such buildings. Consequently, the court refused the application for further discovery.

In his judgment, Pincus J also addressed the costs associated with the hearing. The costs of the hearing, except those related to the application for discovery, were to be treated as costs in the proceedings. Conversely, the costs related to the application for discovery were to be taxed and paid by the respondent. Pincus J noted that under the court's rules, an order for taxation of costs did not automatically lead to immediate taxation unless specified by a further order, meaning the taxation of these costs would be deferred until the entire matter was resolved.

The court further ordered that the matter be set down for hearing on 30 September 1991, before Pincus J. The applicants were granted leave to file any additional material within three weeks from the date of the order. The detailed orders ensured that the proceedings would continue efficiently while addressing the immediate issues regarding costs and the scope of discovery.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

REQISTRY
AND:	CONSULTING ENGINEERS ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA LTD.

JUDGE W I N G ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	15 APRIL 1991
WHERE MADE!	BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1	No. QG 61 of 1989
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

I will set the matter down for hearing on Monday, 30 proceedings, except insofar as they related to the application September, before me. The costs of today will be costs in the	for discovery. Those costs will be taxed and paid by the
respondent. I should mention that under the rules of this Court an order in that form does not carry a right to an immediate taxation unless there is a further order, so that the taxation of those costs will await the resolution of the whole matter.