Trade Practices Commission v Santos Ltd

[1993] FCA 12

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No. VG 377 of 1992
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)
B E T W E E N :

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Applicant

SANTOS LIMITED

First Respondent

SAGASCO HOLDINGS LIMITED

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE :	Gray J.
PLACE	: Melbourne
M:	19th January 1993

It will probably be apparent from what I have said during argument that I do not propose to make any order at all in relation to the form of the list of documents as it presently stands. That is not to say that I am not in some respects critical of the form, particularly of those instances where descriptions such as "Notes" appear, without any indication of the name of the person responsible for the notes, the subject of the notes, or the date of the notes. It seems to me, however, that the addition of the first respondent's computer system numbering causes the list of documents and the documents enumerated in it to satisfy the requirement of 0.15 r. 6 (3) of the Federal Court Rules, that is to describe the documents sufficiently to enable each

document to be identified.

As to the provision of that list of documents in
electronic form, I am of the view that the powers found in

0.10 of the Federal Court Rules, in particular 0.10

1 2 (a) (i)

, which empower the Court to make orders with respect to discovery and inspections of documents, are broad enough to permit me to make an order that the list of documents be supplied in electronic form. I propose to exercise that power, for the reason that it seems to me that the conduct of litigation on the scale involved in the matter currently before me would be assisted greatly by the availability to all parties of the list of documents in electronic form. I is true, as M r Strahan, senior counsel for the first respondent, has submitted, that the provision of a list of documents in that form might be capable of forming the basis for the construction of a data base by the other parties. That does not seem to me to be an objection to the provision of a list of documents in electronic form. Rather, it seems to me to be an advantage, because ultimately the losing party, whichever that might be, will save money in the

form of the costs of litigation.

I have already indicated that, so far as the applicant's notice of motion is concerned, I propose to reserve to the trial judge the question of any costs of the applicant thrown away by reason of the provision by the first respondent of a second version of its list of documents, after the applicant had made working copies of the original list, which it received on 30th December 1992.

As to the question of a time-table, I accept that I should vary the order of Northrop J. made on 8th December 1992, by substituting in paragraph 2 of that order "24th February 1993" for "1st February 1993", so that inspection of documents by each party should conclude by 24th February. I propose to leave the directions hearing where it is on 26th February 1993 but to vacate paragraph 3 of that order, under which subpoenas are to be returnable on 26th February. It will therefore be necessary for application to be made on 26th February for a further date to be fixed for the return of subpoenas.

Finally, because of the way in which it appears to me that each party has had some success but not complete success, I would propose to make no order as to the costs of the two notices of motion.

The order that I make, therefore, is as follows:

1.  Paragraph 2 of the order made on 8th December 1992 is varied by substituting for "1st February 1993" the date "24th February 1993".

2.    The order made on 8th December 1992 is varied by deleting paragraph 3 thereof.

3.  On or before 21st January 1993, the first respondent supply to the applicant and to the second respondent computer discs containing its list of documents in accessible electronic form.

1. The question of any costs of the applicant thrown away by reason of the delivery by the first respondent of an amended list of documents after 30th December 1992 is reserved to the trial judge.

5.    Otherwise the applicant's notice of motion filed on 15th January 1993 and the second respondent's notice of motion filed on 15th January 1993 are dismissed.

It should be noted that there is no order as to

costs on either motion.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for

Judgment of the Honourable

Justice Gray.

Dated: 3" 6&fwrl /?43.

Associate

Avvearances:

Counsel for the applicant:	M. Goldblatt
Solicitor for the applicant:	Australian  Government
Solicitor

Counsel for the first respondent: Mr. J. Strahan Q.C. with

Mr. D. Shavin

Solicitors for the first

respondent:	Freehill Hollingdale and Page
Counsel for the second
respondent:	Mr. J. Beach
Solicitors for the second
respondent:	Arthur Robinson and Hedderwicks as agents for Finlaysons.