Tennent Group Pty Ltd v Veritec Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Tennent Group Pty Ltd v Veritec Pty Ltd

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 313

Hearing Date: 

27 June 2025

Decision Date: 

21 July 2025

Before:

Muller AJ

Decision: 

See [35]

Catchwords: 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY – application for discovery of documents from prospective defendants – whether sufficient basis to show potential cause of action exists – whether reasonable inquiries made – whether documents sought relevant to deciding whether to bring proceedings – narrow scope of proposed discovery

Legislation Cited: 

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2, s 18

Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT), r 651

Cases Cited: 

Elmaraazey v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2006] ACTSC 124; 205 FLR 445

Hall v Commonwealth [2018] ACTSC 79

Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Civil Aviation Authority (1995) 217 ALR 303

iSAM Securities (UK) Ltd v Press [2024] NSWSC 1036

Kusa v Vong (trading as Allen Vong & Associates) [2018] ACTSC 103

Matuska v Ali (1987) 71 ACTR 23

Morton v Nylex Ltd [2007] NSWSC 562

Pesec v Consolidated Builders Ltd [2019] ACTSC 142

Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW v Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 114

Waller v Waller [2009] WASCA 61

Parties: 

Tennent Group Pty Ltd ( Applicant)

Veritec Pty Ltd ( First Respondent)

Mentum Systems Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

J Moffett, R Walls ( Applicant)

S Onitiri ( First and Second Respondent)

Solicitors

BAL Lawyers ( Applicant)

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers ( First and Second Respondent)

File Number:

SC 86 of 2025

MULLER AJ: 

Introduction

1․This is an application for preliminary discovery pursuant to r 651 of the Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT) (the CPR). The applicant company was established with a view to it being the vehicle for the provision of a range of professional services to the Department of Defence.

2․It is not a matter of controversy that the applicant company was first registered on 13 April 2023, and that its directors were, both before and after the date of registration, in negotiations with persons having a connection with the first and second potential defendant entities. Those negotiations concerned, at least, the contemplation of some joint provision of services to the Commonwealth, or more particularly, the Department of Defence.

3․It is also not a matter of controversy that, in the course of the negotiations, the applicant entered into an agreement described as a “teaming agreement” with the first potential defendant, Veritec Pty Ltd.

4․The fact of this application may be enough to demonstrate that those negotiations did not end in a way that the directors of the applicant envisaged or intended.

5․It is in respect of the legal import of those negotiations that the applicant is considering bringing proceedings against either or both of the potential defendant entities. The applicant considers that it may have a cause of action against either or both of the potential defendants, and asserts that after making reasonable inquiries, it cannot obtain sufficient information to…