FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Storm Financial Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2012] FCA 915
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The date in paragraph 17 of the Discovery Plan be amended to 16 May 2012.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | QUD 590 of 2010 |
BETWEEN: | TRACEY RICHARDS Applicant |
AND: | MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED ABN 46 008 583 542 Respondent |
JUDGE: | REEVES J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 1 MARCH 2012 |
WHERE MADE: | BRISBANE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The date in paragraph 17 of the Discovery Plan be amended to 16 May 2012.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 811 of 2010 |
BETWEEN: | LESLIE JAMES SHERWOOD First Applicant JULIANNE SHERWOOD Second Applicant SEAN PATRICK JUDE MCARDLE Third Applicant PAULA JOANNE MCARDLE Fourth Applicant |
AND: | COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ABN 48 123 123 124 First Respondent COLONIAL FIRST STATE INVESTMENTS LTD ABN 98 002 348 352 Second Respondent |
JUDGE: | reeves j |
DATE OF ORDER: | 1 march 2012 |
WHERE MADE: | brisbane |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The date in paragraph 17 of the Discovery Plan be amended to 16 May 2012.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
queensland DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
general DIVISION | QUD 577 of 2010 |
BETWEEN: | AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Plaintiff | ||
AND: | STORM FINANCIAL LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 064 804 691 First Defendant COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ACN 123 123 124 Second Defendant BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED ACN 009 656 740 Third Defendant MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED ACN 008 583 542 Fourth Defendant CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACN 002 835 592 and CHALLENGER LIMITED Others | ||
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |||
queensland DISTRICT REGISTRY | |||
general DIVISION | qud 590 of 2010 | ||
BETWEEN: | TRACEY RICHARDS Applicant |
| |||||
AND: | MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED ABN 46 008 583 542 Respondent |
| |||||
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |||||||
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |||||||
general DIVISION | nsd 811 of 2010 | ||||||
BETWEEN: | LESLIE JAMES SHERWOOD First Applicant JULIANNE SHERWOOD Second Applicant SEAN PATRICK JUDE MCARDLE Third Applicant PAULA JOANNE MCARDLE Fourth Applicant |
|
AND: | COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA ABN 48 123 123 124 First Respondent COLONIAL FIRST STATE INVESTMENTS LTD ABN 98 002 348 352 Second Respondent |
|
JUDGE: | REEVES J |
DATE: | 1 march 2012 |
PLACE: | brisbane |
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 23 September 2011, I made orders in this matter, including Schedule A (the Discovery Plan). The Discovery Plan was adopted by agreement between the parties. It included a provision that allowed for objection by a third party to the production of any of its documents.
2 In 2011, Challenger Limited and Challenger Managed Investments Ltd (jointly to be referred to as Challenger) objected to the production of certain documents (the Challenger documents) held by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC had obtained those documents under one of the statutory processes in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). Challenger was subsequently successful in its objection and thereby able to enforce its interest to limit any production of the Challenger documents to those documents that had apparent relevance in these proceedings. Since that ruling, the parties have identified various categories of documents which include a number of unobjected categories that are agreed to have apparent relevance in these proceedings.
3 It is now necessary for someone to go through the Challenger documents to put them into those categories. Macquarie Bank Limited says that ASIC should perform that exercise as part of its discovery obligations as a party to these proceedings. In my view, that submission should be rejected. The peculiar situation that has emerged here essentially flows from the agreement between the parties that was incorporated in the Discovery Plan that was put in place. As I have said, the Discovery Plan included a provision that allowed for a third party, like Challenger, to make the objection it did. I therefore consider the current circumstances are unique such that ASIC does not have the same obligations as it ordinarily would have as a party in relation to the discovery of the Challenger documents.
4 For its part, ASIC submits that it is not appropriate to require it to review the unobjected Challenger documents and place them into the agreed categories. It submits, first, it is not its interests that are being protected, but Challenger’s, consequently Challenger is the proper person to make that assessment. ASIC also submits that, for resources reasons, it could not undertake an examination of the documents concerned until early May 2012 and that will upset the pre-trial program that is in place.
5 Challenger says it is willing to review the documents concerned and place them into the agreed categories, but it submits it should be paid the costs associated with that exercise.
6 In the circumstances where Challenger has made the objections as a third party to these proceedings and it is seeking to protect its interests, I consider that Challenger should conduct this review and undertake the categorisation exercise at its own cost.
7 The only order I therefore need to make is that the date in paragraph 17 of the Discovery Plan be amended to 16 May 2012.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves. |
Associate:
