FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority [1999] FCA 174

EVIDENCE – discovery – civil proceedings – claim of public interest privilege – ruling following inspection.

MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ORS v GERALDTON PORT AUTHORITY & ORS

WAG 101 OF 1998

R D NICHOLSON J

3 MARCH 1999

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 101 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA First Applicant PETER WINCH-BUIST, PAUL ARTHUR, CLIVE LAURISTEN, STEVE PENNEY Second Applicant
AND:	GERALDTON PORT AUTHORITY First Respondent B E AND SG BROWN NOMINEES PTY LTD (TRADING AS GERALDTON SHIPPING AGENCIES) Second Respondent ERIC CHARLTON Third Respondent MURRAY CRIDDLE Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:	R D NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Paragraph 2 of the applicants’ motion dated 15 January 1999 be refused in respect of documents 3 and 6 in the fourth respondent’s list of documents.

2. Paragraph 2 of the applicants’ motion dated 15 January 1999 be held over in relation to documents 4 and 5 until submissions at trial on the use of “the Expressions” as defined in the reasons herein dated 25 February 1999.

3. Costs reserved.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 101 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA

First Applicant

PETER WINCH-BUIST, PAUL ARTHUR, CLIVE LAURISTEN, STEVE PENNEY

Second Applicant

AND:

GERALDTON PORT AUTHORITY

First Respondent

B E AND SG BROWN NOMINEES PTY LTD (TRADING AS GERALDTON SHIPPING AGENCIES)

Second Respondent

ERIC CHARLTON

Third Respondent

MURRAY CRIDDLE

Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	R D NICHOLSON J
DATE:	3 MARCH 1999
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 Following delivery of my reasons on 25 February 1999 I have inspected the documents numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 contained in the fourth respondent’s list of documents. I now rule as follows in relation to the motion for further and better discovery in relation to each of the documents:

2 Document 3 (excluding facsimile transmission sheet) – exceptional circumstances are not established in relation to this document and the motion is therefore refused in respect of it.

3 Document 4 – the motion is held over in relation to this document until submissions have been head in the course of trial on the use of the Expressions (as defined in the reasons of 25 February 1999).

4 Document 5 (excluding the document “Principles to Guide Western Australia’s Port Authority Development through the 90’s”) – the motion is held over in relation to this document until submissions have been heard in the course of trial on the use of the Expressions.

5 Document 6 – very exceptional circumstances are not established in respect of this document and the motion is refused in respect of it.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice R D Nicholson

Associate:

Dated:

Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr R Redlich QC with Mr W Friend

Solicitor for the Applicants:	Dwyer Durack

Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Mr C Sweeney

Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	McCallum Donovan Sweeney

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent	Mr G Tannin with Mr M Lundberg

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent	Crown Solicitor of WA

Date of Hearing:	16 February 1999

Date of Judgment:	3 March 1999

Top