Quest v Telstra Corporation Ltd

[2001] FCA 526

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Quest v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 526

QUEST SOFTWARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and QUEST SOFTWARE (R & D) PTY LTD  v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
V 317 OF 1999

HEEREY J
1 MAY 2001
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 317 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	QUEST SOFTWARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND QUEST SOFTWARE (R & D) PTY LTD ACN 064 641 989 AND ANOTHER APPLICANT
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD ACN 051 775 556 RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties exchange letters setting out their consolidated complaints regarding discovery by 14 May 2001.

2.The parties each respond to such letters by 28 May 2001.

3.The respondent’s strike out application be listed for hearing on 1 June 2001 at 10.15 am.

4.The respondent file and serve its submissions in relation to the strike out application on 11 May 2001.

5.The applicants file and serve their submissions in reply by 25 May 2001.

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 317 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	QUEST SOFTWARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND QUEST SOFTWARE (R & D) PTY LTD ACN 064 641 989 AND ANOTHER APPLICANT
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD ACN 051 775 556 RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	1 MAY 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. It is plain this matter has become more difficult, complicated and, one might say, confusing than the parties expected.  I think the practical solution is to have a stand‑down of the timetable so that the steps proposed today can take place, that is, an exchange of consolidated complaints about discovery on 14 May, with responses on 28 May, and a hearing of the respondent’s strike‑out motion on 1 June.  Prior to that hearing, respondent’s submissions are to be filed on 11 May and applicant's submissions on 25 May.

2. I think it would only add confusion if, as the respondent suggests, there were particulars to be supplied now which related to only part of the loss alleged by the applicant.  This is not a case where the respondent is being restrained in the conduct of its business by an interlocutory injunction, or suffering any other financial loss.  While the respondent certainly has a legitimate interest in getting this litigation resolved as soon as reasonably possible, I think such delays that will occur are worthwhile in the interests of getting the case into some coherent shape.  As well as the directions that I mentioned, I will vacate orders 1 and 8 of the orders that were made on 13 December 2000.  I will reserve today’s costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.

Associate:

Dated:             4 May 2001    

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M J Colbran QC with Mr G Smith
Solicitor for the Applicant:	White S W Computer Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P E Anastassiou with Mr P Zappia
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Date of Hearing:	1 May 2001
Date of Judgment:	1 May 2001