FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd v The Ship “Charles Darwin” [2018] FCA 1561
ORDERS
BRISBANE CONTAINER TERMINALS PTY LTD Plaintiff | ||
AND: | Defendant | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties bring in short minutes of order within seven days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
PERRAM J:
1 The parties are in dispute over certain aspects of the discovery which the Plaintiff is to give. Following an exchange of written submissions the scope of the dispute has been narrowed.
2 The first issue is whether the keyword searches proposed in ¶1(a) of the Discovery Plan should be further limited by requiring the presence either of “BCT or Brisbane” or “QCA or Crane”. The Plaintiff submits that otherwise the search will be too broad. The Defendant submits this not so and that considerable narrowing will have occurred by reason of the search being limited to the email accounts and electronic directories of the persons identified in the affidavit required by proposed Order 1. It is a question of degree. I accept the Defendant’s submission. The keywords should not be limited by the Plaintiff’s proposed Boolean search terms.
3 The second issue is whether the affidavit referred to in proposed order 1 should require its deponent to identify only the email accounts of the relevant employees or also ‘the electronic directories’. The Defendant’s submission clarified that by this was meant the electronic non-email documents belonging to, or associated with, the particular employee. After an exchange of submissions it was agreed that these were minimal and could be discovered manually. To the extent that there remains a dispute, it appeared to concern whether the electronic documents in question need to be on a ‘computer’ or in an ‘electronic directory’. Assuming there is any difference between these, I would opt for whichever is wider.
4 The third issue concerns whether the Plaintiff should be entitled in the case of employees with minimal or limited involvement simply to examine their electronic documents in the traditional way rather than using keyword searches. Whilst I can see why the Plaintiff proposes this I can also see why the Defendant is apprehensive about it. It involves some grey areas. On balance, I do not think para [3] of the Plaintiff’s proposed Discovery Plan should occur.
5 The final dispute concerns some interrogatories. These were to replace what had been former proposed category (c) in the interlocutory application filed 6 August 2018. I had indicated at the last hearing that I would allow the Defendant to ask five carefully crafted interrogatories in lieu of obtaining documents by way of discovery. There is now the usual debate as to whether that number has been adhered to which I do not propose to resolve. In my opinion, the proposed interrogatories are not oppressive and I allow them. The word ‘damage’ should be changed to ‘structural damage’ in the first line of proposed interrogatory 1.
6 The parties are to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these conclusions.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. |
