Rogala v Markou

Case [1984] FCA 488


. .

. . . .

. .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY)

No. W.A.G. 62 OF 1984

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)

On Appeal

from the Decis'ion of

Mr. Justice

Toohep

on

the

Appellant's (Third Respondent's) Notice of Motion dated the 18th

of June, 1984 in Action No.

52

of 1983

"(i) All

documents

relating

tohe

Applicants' personal financial affairs

including

all

cheque butts,

Bank

statements, Savings and other accounts

2.

operated by them

or either of them

from the 1st of

July 1983.

(ii) All documents relating to any Bankcard

. '

or other credit card operated by the

Applicants or

either of them as from

the 1st July

1983.

of S . 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The action arises

because of alleged misrepresentations made by

or on behalf of

the respondents in relation to the returns received by the third respondent from the business of carrying on a video library. The applicants purchased the business and carried it on between 20 August 1983 and 7 October 1983. Their case

is that the representations

as to takings and

as to expected

profits were not fulfilled and

that

they were induced to

./

J

.

.

.

.

. . .

. .

3.

purchase the business by the representations referred to.

The respondents admit makina some of the representations but

say that they were not false. the applicants' assertions to

the contrary being denied in their defence.

The documents which were sought by the notice

f motion

were sought, according to counsel

f o r

the appellants, in

order to assist the appellants to assess

' whether or not the

applicants may not have received moneys from the business

during the period they carried it on additional to those

which they concede they received. If that were to be

shown,

the

applicants'

case

would

be

damaged

in

an important

respect.

Argument proceeded this morning until counsel

for the

respondents to the appeal, that is

the applicants

, in the

.: .., '. .'

'

. .

~

.

. ,

.

principal proceedings, conceded, at

least': as' a secondary or

fall-back position, that some of the documents. discovery

of

which was sought, would have been relevant to the issues

if

they had been sought in respect of the period during whiih

. .

the business was carried on by the respondents

to he appea=l,

that is, 20 August 1983 to

7 October 1983.

He, at that

stage, would not countenance production of documents prior to

2 0 August 1983. However, during discussions which took place

at

our

suggestion the parties have reached agreement on

documents which should be produced with the consequence that

the appeal should by consent be allowed in part. That

agreement involves the generality of para (i) being cut out,

the period specified therein becoming

1

July 1983 to

7

.

.

4.

October 1983

and similar periods being specified in paras.

(ii) and (iii). The taxation returns sought

in para. (iv)

are not sought upon the basis, no doubt, that they could not

be relevant.

Discussion has taken place as to what the order for

.(

costs ought to be and we have expressed

the view

that the

costs

of

the'

-appeal

should

be costs

in

the

principal

proceedings.

In

the light of

the

foregoing, the orders which the

court makes are

as follows:-

(1)

The appeal be allowed.

. .

. .

. .

~.

.

... .

( 2 )

Paragraph 1 of the order made

. .on 13

' .

. .

. . L .

. .

,.

,

, . .

.

.

. . .

July 1984 which dismissed. &e

notice

.~

. .

. ~ . . .

of motion in so far as it-sought'the

orders in paras. l(a) (i) to

,(iv)

i

- . .

, -

inclusive be set aside and in lieu

- , .

.~

..

.-

. .

.

.

thereof

there

be

substituted

the

following:

The applicants

do, within seven

days from the date hereof, give

discovery on oath of the following

documents or classes of documents

in their possession, custody or

power :

( i)

all

cheque

butts,

bank

i

( 3 )

The costs of the

appeal

be

costs

in

the proceedings.

The Court notes the agreement of the parties that until

further

order

inspection

of the

documents is limited to

.

. ,...

.

. .

6.

counsel and solicitors for the appellants.

.

Details
AGLC
Rogala v Markou [1984] FCA 488
Case
[1984] FCA 488
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rogala v Markou, the case involved the appellants, who had purchased a video library business, seeking to obtain documents from the respondents that related to the financial affairs of the applicants, including bank statements and credit card information. The appellants claimed that the respondents made misrepresentations regarding the financial returns and profits of the video library business, which induced them to purchase the business. The respondents admitted to making some representations but denied that they were false. The appellants sought the discovery of documents to assess if the applicants had received additional moneys from the business beyond what they had already acknowledged receiving. The respondents conceded that some of the documents might have been relevant if they had been sought for the period during which the business was operated by the respondents. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine the appropriate scope and period for the discovery of documents and the costs associated with the appeal.

The court found that the appeal should be allowed in part due to an agreement reached between the parties. The original order seeking discovery of documents was set aside and replaced with a new order that specified a different period for the discovery of financial documents. The new order required the applicants to provide discovery of cheque butts, bank statements, and credit card information from July 1, 1983, to October 7, 1983. The court also determined that the costs of the appeal should be treated as costs in the principal proceedings. The court noted that, until further order, inspection of the documents was limited to counsel and solicitors for the appellants. This decision allowed for a more focused discovery process, ensuring that the relevant documents were obtained within a specified timeframe while addressing the procedural and cost issues raised by the parties.

The court's decision in Rogala v Markou focused on the appropriate scope and period for the discovery of documents in a commercial dispute. By allowing the appeal in part and substituting the original order with a new one, the court ensured that the discovery process was limited to the relevant period and specific types of documents. This approach balanced the need for the appellants to assess the financial affairs of the applicants with the respondents' rights to limit the scope of discovery. The decision also addressed the procedural and cost issues by determining that the costs of the appeal should be treated as costs in the principal proceedings. The court's ruling provided clarity and direction for the parties, facilitating the resolution of the dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.