Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2005] FCA 1902

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1902
SPATIALINFO PTY LIMITED v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED and AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
V 240 OF 2004
SUNDBERG J
22 DECEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 240 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

SPATIALINFO PTY LIMITED
(ACN 071 977 921)
APPLICANT AND FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
FIRST RESPONDENT AND CROSS-CLAIMANT

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 006 741 340)
SECOND RESPONDENT AND SECOND
CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The use and disclosure of documents provided or to be provided in this proceeding, which a party claims to be confidential, be subject to and in accordance with Annexure X to these Orders.

2. Upon receipt of signed confidentiality undertakings from the second respondent (Autodesk), the applicant (Spatialinfo) forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 31 October 2005 and the first respondent (Telstra) forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 24 October 2005.

3. Telstra file and serve any request for further and better particulars of Spatialinfo’s Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (Claim) on or before 20 January 2006.

4. Spatialinfo answer any request for further and better particulars filed and served in pursuance of Order 3 on or before 3 February 2006.

5. Autodesk file and serve any request for further and better particulars of Spatialinfo’s Claim on or before 10 February 2006.

6. Telstra and Autodesk file and serve any further motion or motions to strike out Spatialinfo’s claim, together with any supporting submissions, on or before 10 February 2006.

7. Spatialinfo answer any request for further and better particulars filed and served in pursuance of order 5 on or before 17 February 2006.

8. On or before 17 February 2006:

(a) Telstra file and serve its Defence to Spatialinfo’s claim;

(b) Telstra file and serve any Amended First Cross Claim on Spatialinfo;

(c) Telstra file and serve any Amended Second Cross Claim on Autodesk.

9. If Telstra files and serves a motion in accordance with Order 6:

(a) Orders 11, 12, 14 and 16 be vacated;

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any submissions in reply on or before 24 February 2006; and

(c) the matter be re-listed before Justice Sundberg on the first available date after 3 March 2006.

10. If Autodesk files and serves a motion in accordance with order 6:

(a) Orders 13 and 15 be vacated;

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any submissions in reply on or before 24 February 2006; and

(c) the matter be re-listed before Justice Sundberg on the first available date after 3 March 2006.

11. On or before 10 March 2006:

(a) Spatialinfo file and serve its Defence to Telstra’s First Cross Claim or Amended First Cross Claim (as the case may be); and

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any Reply to Telstra’s…

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: [2005] FCA 1902
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Spatialinfo Pty Ltd took legal action against Telstra Corporation Ltd, with Autodesk also becoming involved in the proceedings. The dispute primarily centred around issues of confidentiality, the disclosure of documents, and the timetable for the litigation process. The court was tasked with deciding whether the proposed confidentiality regime by Spatialinfo was acceptable and if the suggested timetable for the litigation was appropriate.

The court examined the nature of the confidential information exchanged between Spatialinfo and Telstra, noting that the proposed confidentiality regime by Spatialinfo did not adequately reflect the extensive history of dealings and information sharing between the parties. The court held that while the information might be confidential in dealings with third parties, it did not hold the same level of confidentiality between Spatialinfo and Telstra. The court approved the confidentiality arrangement proposed by Telstra and Autodesk, subject to some amendments, and outlined specific conditions for the use and disclosure of confidential documents. The court also established a timetable for various procedural steps, including the production of documents, filing of particulars, and responses to motions.

In summary, the court's decision involved approving a modified confidentiality agreement for Telstra and Autodesk, setting forth conditions for the handling of confidential documents, and establishing a detailed timetable for the litigation process. The court also addressed the joinder of Autodesk as a respondent, confirmed that Autodesk had already been joined in the proceedings, and outlined the specific procedural steps and deadlines for the parties to follow.

The court issued orders that the use and disclosure of confidential documents be governed by the terms of the approved confidentiality agreement. The orders specified the production of certain documents by Spatialinfo and Telstra upon receiving signed confidentiality undertakings from Autodesk. Additionally, the court set out a detailed timetable for the parties to follow, including deadlines for filing particulars, defences, and responses to motions. The court reserved costs and granted liberty to apply for further orders as needed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The use and disclosure of documents provided or to be provided in this proceeding, which a party claims to be confidential, be subject to and in accordance with Annexure X to these Orders.

2. Upon receipt of signed confidentiality undertakings from the second respondent (Autodesk), the applicant (Spatialinfo) forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 31 October 2005 and the first respondent (Telstra) forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 24 October 2005.

3. Telstra file and serve any request for further and better particulars of Spatialinfo’s Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (Claim) on or before 20 January 2006.

4. Spatialinfo answer any request for further and better particulars filed and served in pursuance of Order 3 on or before 3 February 2006.

5. Autodesk file and serve any request for further and better particulars of Spatialinfo’s Claim on or before 10 February 2006.

6. Telstra and Autodesk file and serve any further motion or motions to strike out Spatialinfo’s claim, together with any supporting submissions, on or before 10 February 2006.

7. Spatialinfo answer any request for further and better particulars filed and served in pursuance of order 5 on or before 17 February 2006.

8. On or before 17 February 2006:

(a) Telstra file and serve its Defence to Spatialinfo’s claim;

(b) Telstra file and serve any Amended First Cross Claim on Spatialinfo;

9. If Telstra files and serves a motion in accordance with Order 6:

(a) Orders 11, 12, 14 and 16 be vacated;

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any submissions in reply on or before 24 February 2006; and

10. If Autodesk files and serves a motion in accordance with order 6:

(a) Orders 13 and 15 be vacated;

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any submissions in reply on or before 24 February 2006; and

11. On or before 10 March 2006:

(a) Spatialinfo file and serve its Defence to Telstra’s First Cross Claim or Amended First Cross Claim (as the case may be); and

(b) Spatialinfo file and serve any Reply to Telstra’s Defence.

12. On or before 24 March 2006 Telstra file and serve any Reply to Spatialinfo’s Defence.

13. On or before 31 March 2006 Autodesk file and serve its Defence to Spatialinfo’s Claim.

14. On or before 31 March 2006 Autodesk file and serve its Defence to Telstra’s Second Cross Claim or Amended Second Cross Claim (as the case may be).

15. On or before 14 April 2006 Spatialinfo file and serve any Reply to Autodesk’s Defence.

16. On or before 14 April 2006 Telstra file and serve any Reply to Autodesk’s Defence to Telstra’s Second Cross Claim or Amended Second Cross Claim (as the case may be).

17. The matter be adjourned for directions before Justice Sundberg on 28 April 2006.

18. Costs be reserved.

19. There be liberty to apply.

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

Spatialinfo’s proposed regime does not accommodate or reflect the lengthy course of dealing between it and Telstra during which much confidential information has been passed to Telstra pursuant to various licences. That information may be confidential as between Spatialinfo and third parties, but not between it and Telstra.CONCLUSION ON CONFIDENTIALITY The confidentiality arrangement proposed by Telstra and Autodesk does not possess the features of Spatialinfo’s arrangement referred to at [3] to [13]. The former arrangement should, with some amendments, be approved. I will order that the use and disclosure of documents provided or to be provided in the proceeding, which a party claims to be confidential, be subject to and in accordance with Annexure X to the Orders, and that upon receipt of signed confidentiality undertakings, Telstra forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 24 October 2005 and Spatialinfo forthwith produce to Autodesk the documents listed in the Notice to Produce dated 31 October 2005. The approved confidentiality agreement does not apply to confidential information and confidential documents now or in the future lawfully in the possession of a party independently of this proceeding. See par 7 of Annexure X.TIMETABLE The parties were also in disagreement as to the timetable for further steps in the proceeding. I was asked to arbitrate. The result of the arbitration appears in pars 3 to 17 of the orders herein.JOINDER Telstra asked for an order adding Autodesk as a respondent. Autodesk has already been joined. See the order of 26 October 2005. Some of the documents filed reflect this.

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	V 240 OF 2004

JUDGE:	SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 DECEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE