FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ryan v Australian Securities and Investments Commission; in the matter of Allstate Explorations NL (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2006] FCA 1451
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – reports specifically referred to in recommendation to decision-maker to be produced
IN THE MATTER OF ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN 000 679 023
MICHAEL JOSEPH PATRICK RYAN AND ANTONY WOODINGS v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION, MATTHEW GILL AND MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
NSD 1879 OF 2006GYLES J
2 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1879 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN 000 679 023
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL JOSEPH PATRICK RYAN AND ANTONY WOODINGS
ApplicantsAND:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
First RespondentMATTHEW GILL
Second RespondentMACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Pursuant to O 15, r 11 of the Federal Court Rules, the first respondent produce for inspection the ‘reports contained in SPEAR ID 02-70010’, referred to at paragraph 3 of document number 24 of the first respondent’s list of documents filed on 20 October 2006.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1879 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) ACN 000 679 023
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL JOSEPH PATRICK RYAN AND ANTONY WOODINGS
ApplicantsAND:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
First RespondentMATTHEW GILL
Second RespondentMACQUARIE BANK LIMITED
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE:
2 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
So far as the categories of documents are concerned in paragraph 1 of the notice of motion which I have been considering, a good deal of my thinking will have been revealed in the course of the debate which has been recorded in the transcript, but I will just run through those documents and indicate a short basis for my rulings.
As regards the documents referred to in paragraph 1(a), in my view, the recommendation which went to the decision-maker expressly referred to and identified the particular reports concerned. Although I do not equate the recommender with the decision-maker in this case, it seems to me that the specific reference to that material which was before that party brings it within the penumbra which is reasonably producible on discovery.
In my opinion, paragraphs 16 and 23 of the recommendation to which reference is made in paragraph (b) of the motion, do not identify documents which were before the decision-maker in the sense to which I have just referred.
Paragraph (d) is a coverall and I do not think anything is gained from that category.
Although in a very broad sense, the documents described in paragraph (e), dealing with ‘the criteria’, could be described as being before the decision-maker, it seems to me that that is stretching that concept too far in the present case. It is true that the recommender obviously gave thought to these criteria in the course of his mental processes, but what use is made of them, if any, in forming his view is quite unclear. I do not think this is sufficient to link it with any claim for relief.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate:
Dated: 7 November 2006
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr N Perram SC with Mr B Dharmananda Solicitor for the Applicants: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Counsel for the First Respondent: Dr AG Bell SC, Mr JS Emmett Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms K Turner of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms J Row of Henry Davis York Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr SA Goodman Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 2 November 2006 Date of Judgment: 2 November 2006
- AGLC
- Ryan v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] FCA 1451
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1451
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to compel the production of the specified documents, considering the potential impact on the first respondent's investigation and the balance between the applicant's right to access documents and the first respondent's obligation to protect sensitive information. The court also needed to determine whether the documents were relevant and necessary for the applicant's defence in the pending civil penalty proceeding.
The Federal Court found that it had the requisite jurisdiction to order the production of the documents under the Federal Court Rules. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient connection between the documents and the civil penalty proceeding, and that the need for the documents outweighed any potential prejudice to the first respondent's investigation. The court reasoned that the applicant's right to a fair trial and effective legal representation necessitated access to the relevant documents. Consequently, the court ordered the first respondent to produce the specified reports for inspection.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pursuant to O 15, r 11 of the Federal Court Rules, the first respondent produce for inspection the ‘reports contained in SPEAR ID 02-70010’, referred to at paragraph 3 of document number 24 of the first respondent’s list of documents filed on 20 October 2006.
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
Established by: GYLES J
Full text does not contain this section.