Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2008] FCA 34

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 34
SPATIALINFO PTY LIMITED (ACN 071 977 921) v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556) AND AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 006 741 340)
VID 240 OF 2004
SUNDBERG J
25 JANUARY 2008
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 240 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

SPATIALINFO PTY LIMITED (ACN 071 977 921)
Applicant

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (ACN 051 775 556)
First Respondent

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 006 741 340)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JANUARY 2008

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The time for compliance with orders 1, 2, 4, 5, 11A and 13 made by Registrar Allaway on 28 November 2007 be extended to 31 January 2008.
2.The time for compliance with order 3 made by Registrar Allaway on 28 November 2007 be extended to 4 December 2007.
3.On or before 7 March 2008 the applicant provide discovery of documents falling within the second respondent’s third list of categories of documents for discovery by the applicant dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is annexure A to the second respondent’s notice of motion dated 22 November 2007, amended however by deleting from the first line of each category the words “recording, evidencing or referring to” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “recording or evidencing”.
4.On or before 7 March 2008 the applicant take all reasonable steps available to it to obtain and produce to the second respondent all documents or copies thereof falling within the categories described in the said annexure A (amended as aforesaid) which are in the possession, custody or power of any of:
(a)Spatialinfo, Inc; or
(b)Spatial Enterprise Systems Pty Ltd (ACN 002 360 661) (formerly called ARC Systems Pty Ltd and ARC Cadcentre Pty Ltd); or
(c)Spatial Systems Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 003 200 744); or
(d)Spatial Systems Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 003 751 577); or
(e)Spatial Enterprise Consulting Pty Ltd (ACN 003 751 568).

5.On or before 21 March 2008 the applicant file and serve on the second respondent a statement of contention, being a document summarising its case against the second respondent on the issues of:
(a)delivery by the second respondent of the “CPR Data Cleansing & Export Tools” as alleged by the applicant in par 36 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (Statement of Claim);
(b)disclosure by the second respondent of some or all of the “CPR Data Cleansing & Export Tools” as alleged in par 50 of the Statement of Claim; and
(c)loss and damage alleged in pars 42 and 51 of the Statement of Claim.

6.On or before 21 March 2008 the applicant file and serve on the first respondent a statement of contention, being a document summarising its case against the first respondent on the issue of loss and damage alleged in pars 46, 55 and 61 of the Statement of Claim.
7.On or before 4 April 2008 the applicant…

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 Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd 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: [2008] FCA 34
Decision Date: 25 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Spatialinfo Pty Ltd and Telstra Corporation Ltd were involved in a legal dispute, with the case being heard in an Australian court. The dispute centred on various allegations of failure to deliver software tools and associated damages. As the case progressed, Telstra sought particulars of certain calculations detailed in a confidential document, specifically Confidential Schedule 3. However, due to the confidential nature of this document, the court declined to order its disclosure. Instead, the court ruled that it would be more appropriate for Spatialinfo to provide Telstra with a statement of contention regarding the loss and damage claimed against Telstra. This statement was expected to outline Spatialinfo's case against Telstra, particularly focusing on the delivery and disclosure of software tools and the resultant losses.

The court had to decide on several legal issues, including the appropriate measures to ensure that the parties complied with earlier orders and the necessity of particulars for certain confidential documents. Furthermore, the court considered the timing of specific procedural steps such as discovery of documents, statements of contention, and the presentation of evidence in chief. The court had to balance the need for transparency and fairness in the proceedings with the protection of confidential information. It was imperative that the court's decisions facilitated a just resolution of the dispute while adhering to procedural fairness and confidentiality requirements.

In its ruling, the court addressed the timeline for compliance with previous orders and set new deadlines for specific procedural steps. Notably, the court granted extensions for certain compliance deadlines and mandated the production of a statement of contention by Spatialinfo. The court also directed that the time for compliance with certain orders be extended, allowing the parties more time to prepare their cases. Furthermore, the court ruled that Autodesk, one of the parties, should bear the costs of the motion, reflecting the court's view on the relative success of the parties in their respective claims. The court also reserved the right to determine costs for the day, indicating that a final decision on costs would be made later.

The final orders included specific directives for the parties to extend compliance times for certain procedural steps, provide statements of contention, and produce relevant documents. The court also set deadlines for filing and serving these statements and evidence. Additionally, the court reserved certain issues for a later date and directed that the costs of the motion be borne by one of the parties. The directions hearing was further adjourned to allow for additional preparation and presentation of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for compliance with orders 1, 2, 4, 5, 11A and 13 made by Registrar Allaway on 28 November 2007 be extended to 31 January 2008.

2. The time for compliance with order 3 made by Registrar Allaway on 28 November 2007 be extended to 4 December 2007.

3. On or before 7 March 2008 the applicant provide discovery of documents falling within the second respondent’s third list of categories of documents for discovery by the applicant dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is annexure A to the second respondent’s notice of motion dated 22 November 2007, amended however by deleting from the first line of each category the words “recording, evidencing or referring to” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “recording or evidencing”.

4. On or before 7 March 2008 the applicant take all reasonable steps available to it to obtain and produce to the second respondent all documents or copies thereof falling within the categories described in the said annexure A (amended as aforesaid) which are in the possession, custody or power of any of:

(a) Spatialinfo, Inc; or

(b) Spatial Enterprise Systems Pty Ltd (ACN 002 360 661) (formerly called ARC Systems Pty Ltd and ARC Cadcentre Pty Ltd); or

(d) Spatial Systems Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 003 751 577); or

(e) Spatial Enterprise Consulting Pty Ltd (ACN 003 751 568).

5. On or before 21 March 2008 the applicant file and serve on the second respondent a statement of contention, being a document summarising its case against the second respondent on the issues of:

(a) delivery by the second respondent of the “CPR Data Cleansing & Export Tools” as alleged by the applicant in par 36 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (Statement of Claim);

(b) disclosure by the second respondent of some or all of the “CPR Data Cleansing & Export Tools” as alleged in par 50 of the Statement of Claim; and

6. On or before 21 March 2008 the applicant file and serve on the first respondent a statement of contention, being a document summarising its case against the first respondent on the issue of loss and damage alleged in pars 46, 55 and 61 of the Statement of Claim.

7. On or before 4 April 2008 the applicant file and serve its evidence in chief.

8. The issues the subject of pars 3, 6 and 7 of the second respondent’s said notice of motion be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

9. The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the said motion.

10. The costs of the day be otherwise reserved.

11. The directions hearing be adjourned to 30 May 2008.

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

SUNDBERG J

At a late stage in the argument Mr Wyles, for Telstra, sought an order for particulars of the calculations in Confidential Schedule 3. Because it is said to be a confidential document, I will not describe it. In response to Telstra’s application Dr Hanak submitted that it would be more appropriate to order that Spatialinfo provide Telstra with a statement of contention as to loss and damage against Telstra. I think that is the more appropriate course. As with Autodesk’s subpoena application, Telstra’s application for particulars can be renewed if Spatialinfo’s notice of contention does not live up to Mr Lee’s expectation.CONCLUSION The times within which Autodesk and Spatialinfo respectively contend that various steps should be taken were measured from 30 November 2007, the date on which the motion was heard. It was not possible to make orders on that day. Autodesk sought discovery by Spatialinfo within two weeks, and Autodesk within eight weeks, of 30 November 2007. I have allowed six weeks from today’s date. The other dates are 21 March for Spatialinfo’s statements of contention (eight weeks) and its evidence in chief (ten weeks). Autodesk has been largely successful in securing the relief sought against Spatialinfo, and should have its costs of the motion. Otherwise the costs of the day are reserved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SUNDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 240 OF 2004

JUDGE:	SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JANUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE