FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Szymczak v Balijepall [2019] FCA 234
File number: NSD 2355 of 2018 Judge: LEE J Date of judgment: 15 February 2019 Catchwords: DISCOVERY – application for preliminary discovery under FCR 7.23 – seeking disclosure of details relating to the identity of the publisher of allegedly defamatory material
EQUITY – bill of discovery to ascertain the identity of a prospective defendant.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.32, 7.21, 7.22, 7.33 Cases cited: Hooper v Kirella Pty Limited [1999] FCA 1584; (1999) 96 FCR 1 at 11 [34]
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133
Heydon JD, Leeming MJ and Turner PG, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (5th ed, Butterworths, 2014)
Date of hearing: 15 February 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 12 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Castalan Solicitor for the Applicant: Slocombe Brand Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance ORDERS
NSD 2355 of 2018 BETWEEN: DAVID SZYMCZAK
Applicant
AND: ANANTH BALIJEPALL
Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 FEBRUARY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Ananth Balijepalli attend before the Court at 10.15 am on 18 March 2019 to be examined orally about the description of any person who participated in the publication of an email dated 6 May 2018, that is Schedule A to the statement of claim in this proceeding (the Email), being a Prospective Respondent; and
2.Ananth Balijepalli on or before 18 March 2019 produce to the Court any document or thing in Ananth Balijepalli’s control relating to the Email, the Email Recipients or containing the Prospective Respondent‘s description, including:
(i)the device used to send the Email on 6 May 2018;
(ii)any device used that received or retained the list of the recipients to whom the Email was sent (the Recipients); and
(iii)any communication between Ananth Balijepalli and any person relating to the Email, the list of the Recipients or any other communication intended to be sent to the Recipients.
3.Ananth Balijepalli on or before 18 March 2019 give discovery to the Prospective Applicant of all documents that are or have been in Ananth Balijepalli’s control relating to the Email, the Recipients or containing the Prospective Respondent‘s description, including:
(i)the device used to send the Email on 6 May 2018;
(ii)any device used that received or retained the list of the Recipients; and
(iii)any communication between Ananth Balijepalli and any person relating to the Email, the list of the Recipients or any other communication intended to be sent to the Recipients.
4.Costs reserved.
5.The matter be listed for an interlocutory hearing at 10.15am on 18 March 2019.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the transcript)LEE J:
The applicant is the chief operating officer of United Petroleum Pty Ltd (United Petroleum) and alleges that in May 2018, the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Szymczak v Balijepall 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 234
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the application for preliminary discovery was appropriate and whether the sought discovery was relevant and necessary for the resolution of the proceeding. The court considered the provisions of the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly Rule 7.23, which allows for discovery to ascertain the identity of a prospective defendant. The court also considered the principles of equity, which support the use of bills of discovery in appropriate circumstances.
The court found that the application for preliminary discovery was appropriate in the circumstances. The court accepted that the email contained defamatory statements and that the identity of the respondent was necessary to proceed with the defamation proceedings. The court also found that the sought discovery was relevant and necessary for the resolution of the proceeding. The court ordered that Balijepalli attend before the Court on 18 March 2019 to be examined orally about the description of any person who participated in the publication of the email. The court further ordered that Balijepalli produce any document or thing in their control relating to the email, the email recipients or containing the prospective respondent’s description. The court reserved costs and listed the matter for an interlocutory hearing at 10.15am on 18 March 2019.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Ananth Balijepalli attend before the Court at 10.15 am on 18 March 2019 to be examined orally about the description of any person who participated in the publication of an email dated 6 May 2018, that is Schedule A to the statement of claim in this proceeding (the Email), being a Prospective Respondent; and
2. Ananth Balijepalli on or before 18 March 2019 produce to the Court any document or thing in Ananth Balijepalli’s control relating to the Email, the Email Recipients or containing the Prospective Respondent‘s description, including:
(i) the device used to send the Email on 6 May 2018;
(ii) any device used that received or retained the list of the recipients to whom the Email was sent (the Recipients); and
(iii) any communication between Ananth Balijepalli and any person relating to the Email, the list of the Recipients or any other communication intended to be sent to the Recipients.
3. Ananth Balijepalli on or before 18 March 2019 give discovery to the Prospective Applicant of all documents that are or have been in Ananth Balijepalli’s control relating to the Email, the Recipients or containing the Prospective Respondent‘s description, including:
(i) the device used to send the Email on 6 May 2018;
(ii) any device used that received or retained the list of the Recipients; and
(iii) any communication between Ananth Balijepalli and any person relating to the Email, the list of the Recipients or any other communication intended to be sent to the Recipients.
4. Costs reserved.
5. The matter be listed for an interlocutory hearing at 10.15am on 18 March 2019.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.