The Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd Apand Pty Ltd (Formerly CCA Snack Foods Pty Ltd)

Case [1995] FCA 948


NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    NG 248 of 1992
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:     THE KETTLE CHIP COMPANY PTY LIMITED

Applicant

AND:APAND PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY CCA SNACK FOODS PTY LIMITED)

Respondent

CORAM: Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney
DATE : 8 November 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.:

In this matter Mr Catterns seeks an order to enable documents produced under the discovery and subpoena and other procedures of the Court in the matter of Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited v Apand Pty Limited to be made available to his client, not merely for the purposes of that action, but also for the purposes of a further action against the holding company of the respondent.  I should add the applicant's proposal is to sue the holding company on causes of action involving an allegation that it was in effect a party to, or a party which aided and abetted (to use the well-known criminal law expression which has been picked up by the Trade Practices Act), the breaches which have been proved against Apand Pty Limited.  It seems to me that, having regard to the closeness of the connection between the present action and the proposed action, the relationship between the respondent in the present action and the proposed respondent, and in all the circumstances, the principles which were expounded in the cases to which Mr Catterns has referred, properly understood, require that I should make the order that is sought.  Those cases are: Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Limited (1991) 29 FCR 576; Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba (Australia) Pty Ltd (1994) 124 ALR 493; and Springfield Nominees Pty Limited v Bridgelands Securities Limited (1992) 38 FCR 217.

I think the notice of motion expresses the matter appropriately, and accordingly I make orders in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett.

Associate:

Date: 23 November 1995

Counsel for the Applicant:       Mr D.K. Catterns Q.C. with Ms S.J. Goddard

Solicitors for the Applicant:        Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Solicitor for the Respondent:        Mr N. Lucas of Clayton Utz

Date of hearing:                 8 November 1995

Details
AGLC
The Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd Apand Pty Ltd (Formerly CCA Snack Foods Pty Ltd) [1995] FCA 948
Case
[1995] FCA 948
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd v Apand Pty Ltd (Formerly CCA Snack Foods Pty Ltd) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry. The case involved an application by The Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd, the applicant, to obtain access to documents produced under the discovery and subpoena procedures of the Court. These documents were initially produced in a separate proceeding between The Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd and Apand Pty Ltd. The applicant sought the documents not only for use in the existing proceedings but also for a potential future action against the holding company of the respondent, Apand Pty Ltd. The applicant intended to allege that the holding company was, in effect, a party to, or aided and abetted, the breaches proven against Apand Pty Ltd.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the applicant could access the documents produced in the existing proceedings for use in a future action, and whether the principles established in previous cases supported such an order. The court considered the closeness of the connection between the current action and the proposed action, the relationship between the respondent in the current action and the proposed respondent, and the principles expounded in cases such as Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Limited, Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba (Australia) Pty Ltd, and Springfield Nominees Pty Limited v Bridgelands Securities Limited.

The court, after considering the circumstances and the precedents, ruled that the principles from the cited cases supported making the order sought by the applicant. The court determined that it was appropriate to grant the order allowing the applicant access to the documents for use in the proposed future action against the holding company of the respondent. The court made orders in terms of the prayers of the notice of motion.

The final orders certified were that the applicant could use the documents produced in the existing proceedings for the purpose of the proposed future action against the holding company of the respondent. The court's decision was based on the established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.

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

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.