FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation (No 1) [2013] FCA 587
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
AND: | Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The application may be renewed after the finalisation of testamentary evidence.
3. Costs be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1941 of 2012 |
BETWEEN: | RAYTHEON COMPANY Applicant
|
AND: | LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Respondent
|
JUDGE: | PERRAM J |
DATE: | 13 JUNE 2013 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for discovery. Ordinarily, I am disposed to make discovery orders after the evidence has been served. In an application such as the present, it is necessary, in my opinion, for the applicant for discovery to demonstrate some saving to be made by the making of a discovery order prior to the filing of testamentary evidence.
2 I have accepted that such applications can be made in the past, for example see my decision in: Foley v Gunns Ltd [2012] FCA 595. I do not think that it has been shown that there is a particularly good reason why discovery ought to be ordered in advance of the delivery of the testamentary evidence. In those circumstances, I dismiss the application. It can be renewed after the testamentary evidence has been prepared and the two issues in the proceedings have been more precisely identified.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. |
Associate:
