Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) [2014] FCA 744

Citation: Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) [2014] FCA 744
Parties: LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS v SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
File number: SAD 336 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 15 July 2014
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for enforcement of prior standard discovery order and, in the alternative, for more extensive discovery – test for standard discovery – whether documents are “directly relevant” to the issues raised by the pleadings – test for standard discovery narrower than train of inquiry test – redaction of documents for production – whether order should be made for discovering party to redact or mask portions of documents not directly relevant to issues raised by the pleadings – rr 20.14 and 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Held: Orders for discovery made with respect to documents directly relevant to the issues raised by the pleadings.

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.14, 20.15, 20.17, 20.22
Cases cited: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 366
Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55
Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) (2009) 253 ALR 354
Spyer v Cuddles ‘N’ Mum (Franchise) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1563
Date of hearing: 3 July 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 43
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr P Moorhouse
Solicitor for the Applicants: Petrine Costigan Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Dr C D Bleby SC
Solicitor for the Respondents: EMA Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 336 of 2012
BETWEEN:

LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS
Applicants
AND:

SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
Respondents

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JULY 2014

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants give discovery on oath in accordance with r 20.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) of the following documents:

(a)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the first applicant with respect to the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2012;

(b)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the third applicant with respect to the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2012;

(c)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the second applicant, in the name of the second applicant or on the second applicant’s behalf;

provided that production of any document within 1(a), (b) or (c) above which shows entries for deposits showing monies received by the applicants as the outcome of a legal dispute which are the subject of an obligation of confidentiality on the applicants is subject to the provision of a confidentiality undertaking by the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) 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
[2014] FCA 744
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) involves a dispute over the discovery of documents. The applicants in the case were willing to provide some of the requested documents, but not others, leading to a conflict over the scope of the discovery process. The court was required to determine the appropriate scope of discovery and address the applicants' objections to the discovery of certain categories of documents, including banking and telecommunications records. The court also needed to consider the applicants' claim for confidentiality regarding certain entries in the banking records.

The court analysed the scope of standard discovery and the relevance of the requested documents to the case. It found that the banking records were relevant to the financial resources and physical capacity of the applicants, while the telecommunications records were not directly relevant to those matters. The court also acknowledged the applicants' claim for confidentiality regarding certain banking entries and included a mechanism in its orders to address this issue. The court concluded that the production of documents should follow the usual discovery process, subject to the resolution of the confidentiality issue and the provision of a confidentiality undertaking by the respondents.

The court's final orders included directions for the applicants to provide discovery of certain banking and telecommunications records, subject to the provision of a confidentiality undertaking by the respondents. The court also allowed liberty to apply and directed the parties to discuss costs. This decision provides guidance on the scope of standard discovery and the resolution of confidentiality claims in the context of a legal 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

As will become clear later in these reasons, the applicants are willing to provide discovery of some of the documents identified in Appendix 1 of the application, but not others.THE EVIDENCE The respondents’ application was supported by an affidavit sworn by their solicitor, Ms Elizabeth Perry. On 10 July 2013, the Court made an order that each party make standard discovery. On or about 13 August 2013, the respondents served on the applicants a list of documents, which was verified by an affidavit sworn by the first respondent. On or about 8 November 2013, the respondents served on the applicants a supplementary list of documents, which was also verified by an affidavit sworn by the first respondent. On or about 22 August 2013, the applicants served on the respondents an executed copy of their list of documents. On or about 17 December 2013, the applicants served on the respondents an executed copy of a supplementary list of documents. There then followed correspondence between the solicitors for the parties wherein the respondents requested discovery of further documents, including, by letter dated 20 December 2013, certain banking records and telecommunications records. By letter dated 17 March 2014, the applicants’ solicitors advised the respondents that a second supplementary list of documents would be served, and that was done on 14 April 2014. In the period between those events, the applicants’ solicitors wrote a detailed letter, dated 27 March 2014, to the respondents’ solicitors advising the respondents of the applicants’ attitude to the discovery of certain categories of documents sought by the respondents. As to the Banking records, the applicants said:6.Bank accounts maintained by the First and Third Applicants for the period 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2012.To the extent that these documents have not been discovered they will be discovered. As to the Telecommunications records, the applicants said:4.Dr Taylor’s telephone billing records for the period May 2007 to March 2012.These documents do not fall within the ambit of standard discovery.We note that Ms Perry’s affidavit sworn 25 February 2014 states that these documents are “directly relevant to a number of factual matters going to the financial resources and physical capacity at all pertinent times”. We do not agree, and do not understand how it can be said that Dr Taylor’s telephone billing records are relevant to “financial resources and physical capacity”.The phone records of the Applicants that relate to conversations about which Dr Taylor gives evidence have been discovered.5.Mr Curiel’s telephone billing records for the period May 2007 to March 2012.These documents do not fall within the ambit of standard discovery.We note that Ms Perry’s affidavit sworn 25 February 2014 states that these documents are “directly relevant to a number of factual matters going to the financial resources and physical capacity at all pertinent times”. We do not agree, and do not understand how it can be said that Mr Curiel’s telephone billing records are relevant to “financial resources and physical capacity”.The phone records of the Applicants that relate to conversations about which Dr Taylor gives evidence have been discovered.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Assuming the issue of redaction can be resolved, then, subject to one matter, the production of documents should follow discovery in the normal way. The one matter is that I will include in the orders an appropriate mechanism to deal with the applicants’ claim for confidentiality in relation to entries in the Banking records for deposits showing monies received by the applicants as the outcome of a legal dispute, which are the subject of an obligation of confidentiality on the applicants.CONCLUSION I will make the following orders:1.The applicants give discovery on oath in accordance with r 20.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) of the following documents:(a)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the first applicant with respect to the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2012;(b)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the third applicant with respect to the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2012;(c)all bank balance and transaction statements pertaining to all accounts held with Australian and/or offshore banking and/or financial institutions by the second applicant, in the name of the second applicant or on the second applicant’s behalf;provided that production of any document within 1(a), (b) or (c) above which shows entries for deposits showing monies received by the applicants as the outcome of a legal dispute, which are the subject of an obligation of confidentiality on the applicants, is subject to the provision of a confidentiality undertaking by the respondents to be agreed between the parties, or, in default of that, fixed by the Court; and (d) the itemised billing records in relation to the following:(i)each and every mobile telephone service held in the name of, or operated principally by, the first applicant; and(ii)each fixed line telephone service held in the sole or joint name of the first applicant and to which the first applicant had regular access,for the dates or periods identified in paragraphs 351, 352, 364, 369, 398, 411, 422, 423, 438, 439, 469, 472, 474, 478, 481, 484, 489, 490, 500, 502, 505, 509, 535, 547, 562, 569, 592, 599, 604, 620, 647, 659, 660, 679, 692, 716, 719 and 851 of the affidavit sworn by the first applicant on 11 November 2013; and(e)the itemised billing records in relation to each and every mobile telephone service held in the name of, or operated principally by, the third applicant for the following dates: 23 March 2011, 24 March 2011, and 25 March 2011.2.Liberty to apply. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.