Legal Research
Cases
Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd

Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd

Case [2019] FCCA 1091 1 May 2019

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VINDEN v WRONG FUEL RESCUE PTY LTD & ANOR

[2019] FCCA 1091

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for discovery – whether discovery in the interests of the administration of justice in a situation where pleadings may be re-opened and where scope of the documents is wide – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.357, 550

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.45

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 14.02, sch.3, pt.2
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), o.11, r.13
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.16.01, 16.07

Cases cited:

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) (2007) 210 FLR 314
ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski [2013] FCAFC 3
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 6) [2012] FCA 1480
Briggs-Smith v Moree Plains Shire Council [2012] FMCA 304
Devine Marine Group Pty ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 442
Moffet v Dental Corporation Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 344
On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation(No 3) [2011] FCA 366
Tattsbet Ltd v Morrow [2015] FCAFC 62
Vanden Driesden v Edith Cowan University (2012) 226 IR 452

Applicant:

DAVID VINDEN

First Respondent:

WRONG FUEL RESCUE PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

YAN VAN DE VELDE

File Number:

PEG 461 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Kendall

Hearing date:

4 April 2019

Date of Last Submission:

4 April 2019

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

1 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Nicholas

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Nicholas Legal

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr B Baker

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Gilchrist Connell

ORDERS

The respondents’ application in a case dated 15 March 2019 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 461 of 2018

DAVID VINDEN

Applicant

And

WRONG FUEL RESCUE PTY LTD

First Respondent

YAN VAN DE VELDE

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(As Corrected)

Before the Court is an application in a case filed by the respondents on 15 March 2019 that seeks the following declaration and order:
1. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth), the Court declares discovery is appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice in this proceeding.
2.Pursuant to r 14.02(2)(b) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, by 2 May 2019 the applicant give disclosure in relation to the following classes of documents:
a. All tax returns filed by or on behalf of the applicant for financial years 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.
b. All tax returns filed by or on behalf of David Christopher Sidney Vinden ABN 19 407 679 309 for financial years 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.
c. Documents recording or evidencing or relating to the business and accounting records of David Christopher Sidney Vinden ABN 19 407 679 309 for financial years 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.
d. Documents recording or evidencing or relating to services the applicant and/or David Christopher Sidney Vinden ABN 19 407 679 309 provided to or for any person or entity…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] FCCA 1091
Case: [2019] FCCA 1091
Decision Date: 1 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd*, heard in the District Court of New South Wales, the applicant sought discovery of documents from the respondent. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged failure to provide adequate services, leading to potential claims that might necessitate the reopening of pleadings. The applicant's request for discovery was broad in scope, encompassing a wide range of documents.

The central legal issue before Judge Kendall was whether the requested discovery was in the interests of the administration of justice, particularly given the possibility that the pleadings might be amended and the wide scope of the documents sought. The court had to balance the need for a fair trial and the disclosure of relevant evidence against the potential for undue burden and fishing expeditions.

Judge Kendall dismissed the application for discovery. The reasoning focused on the fact that the applicant had not demonstrated that the broad discovery sought was necessary for the proper administration of justice in the circumstances. The court considered that the potential for reopening pleadings did not, in itself, justify such an extensive discovery request at that stage, and that the scope of the documents sought was overly wide, suggesting a lack of specificity in the applicant's needs.

Orders