FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Blucher on behalf of the Gaangalu Nation People v State of Queensland [2018] FCA 1621

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Until further order, each of the documents filed by the applicants in each of Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017 as described in the table at paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Kristy Elizabeth Snape sworn 19 October 2018, or to be filed, be available to each of those parties’ experts, to the experts engaged by the State and to any expert retained by Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

2.    Each of the documents filed, or to be filed, by the State of Queensland, in each of Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017, or the State of Queensland, Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty in Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, be available to each of those applicants’ experts, to the experts engaged by the State and to any expert retained by Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

3.    Orders 1 and 2 are to be read as extending to any of the source documents referred to in the expert reports filed in those named proceedings.

4.    Orders 1 and 2 are without prejudice to any party’s position in respect of the further case management of each matter; any interlocutory or final hearing of each matter; or the admissibility of evidence in each matter.

5.    The material received pursuant to orders 1 and 2 is to be used for the purposes of one or more of the named proceedings only.

6.    There be liberty to apply in respect of these orders, on 2 days notice.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROBERTSON J:

Introduction

1    Before the Court is an interlocutory application in each of four matters, the moving party in each instance being the respondent State of Queensland.

2    The orders sought in each matter are identical, as follows:

1.    That each of the documents filed, or to be filed, by the Applicants in each of Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017 (collectively the Proceedings) as described in the table at paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Kristy Elizabeth Snape sworn 19 October 2018, be available to each of those parties’ experts, the experts engaged by the State and Mr Trevor Lamb, and to Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

2.    That each of the documents filed, or to be filed, by the State of Queensland, in each of Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017, or the State of Queensland, Mr Trevor Lamb and Ms Pamela Hegarty in Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, be available to each of those Applicants’ experts, the experts engaged by the State and Mr Trevor Lamb, and to Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

3.    Orders 1 and 2 are to be read as extending to any of the source documents referred to in the expert reports filed in those named proceedings.

4.    The material received pursuant to orders 1 and 2 are to be used for the purposes of the Proceedings only.

3    The State of Queensland relies on an affidavit in each matter sworn by Ms Kristy Elizabeth Snape on 19 October 2018, Ms Snape being the Assistant Crown Solicitor and having the overall conduct of the four proceedings on behalf of the State, subject to the direction of the Crown Solicitor.

4    There being no objection, I took that affidavit in each matter as having been read.

5    The table at paragraph 15 of Ms Snape’s affidavit identifies the lay materials and expert reports that have been filed by the applicant in each of the four matters. That table lists nine documents, being affidavits and expert reports, in the Wadja matter, the most recent being received on 17 September 2018. It lists 14 documents, being affidavits, outlines and expert reports in the Western Kangoulu matter, the most recent being received on 14 September 2018. In the Wulli Wulli #3 matter, 18 documents are listed being affidavits and an expert report, the most recent being received on 14 September 2018. In the Gaangalu matter, the table sets out 32 documents, being affidavits, outlines, notices to adduce and an expert report, the most recent being received on 19 September 2018.

Procedural background

6    Ms Snape deposes that between 5 October 2017 and 6 December 2017 orders were made in each of the Gaangalu, Wadja and Western Kangoulu matters identifying separate questions and programming the matters towards hearing. Similar orders were made in the Wulli Wulli matter on 6 February 2018.

7    By programming orders made in each of the four matters on 6 February 2018, the applicant was required to file its lay materials by 16 August 2018, with expert evidence due by 30 August 2018. Those dates were subsequently extended by two weeks so that lay evidence was to be filed by 30 August 2018 and expert evidence filed by 13 September 2018.

8    Relevantly, across the four matters the next step contemplated by the programming orders (as extended) is for the State and any connection respondent to file expert evidence by 1 November 2018 and for the expert witnesses to attend conferences on or before 15 November 2018 to identify areas of agreement or disagreement in their respective opinions.

9    Ms Snape deposes that on 19 September 2018, the Senior Native Title Case Manager at the Federal Court emailed the parties regarding the conference of experts. The email advised that the Registrar is proposing to hold the following expert conferences:

(a)    Gaangalu / Wadja / State;

(b)    Gaangulu / Western Kangoulu / State;

(c)    Gaangalu / Wulli Wulli / State; and

(d)    Combined regional conference with all the experts.

10    Each of the legal representatives of each of the applicants have responded to the 19 September email, copying Ms Snape, and advised of their experts’ availability to attend the proposed conferences. None of the four applicants has objected to the proposal that their matter be conferenced with the other three matters.

11    On 15 October 2018 the Senior Native Title Case Manager requested that the legal representatives jointly confer with a view to providing draft lists of questions for the expert conferences, and associated lists of agreed basis materials, by 30 October 2018.

12    Ms Snape deposes that the four matters have a number of issues in common, for example:

(a)    Gaangalu and Wulli Wulli each assert the existence of native title rights and interests, held by reason of membership of their respective groups, in the same tract of land and waters;

(b)    Gaangalu and Wadja each claim Lily/Lilla Livingstone, Myra Freeman and Sarah Dodds as apical ancestors, descent from whom is said to give rise to native title rights and interests in different (non-overlapping) tracts of land and waters;

(c)    Gaangalu and Western Kangoulu each claim Annie and Ned Duggan, John “Jack” Bradley and Polly McEvoy/Brown as apical ancestors, descent from whom is said to give rise to native title rights and interests in different (non-overlapping) tracts of land and waters.

13    She deposes that in addition to claims to the same land and waters, or the same ancestors, the four matters plead membership of similarly described pre-sovereignty societies. The examples she provided in paragraph 13 of her affidavit are:

(a)    the statement of claim filed on 21 June 2018 in the Gaangalu matter states at paragraph 7 that:

The Gaangalu ancestors were also part of a broader regional society which encompassed a number of constituent groups which included the Gangalu (Kangulu), Wadja and Garingbal peoples who shared a regional identity label of “Gangalu” (variously spelled) and acknowledged and observed the same traditional normative system (regional society).

(b)    the statement of claim filed on 21 June 2018 in the Western Kangoulu matter states at paragraph 4(a) that:

[At sovereignty] the claim area was part of the land and waters occupied by members of a regional society, comprising the Gangalu people, the Wadja people and the Garingbal people who shared a regional “Gangalu” (variously spelled) identity (Regional Society).

(c)    the statement of claim filed on 7 June 2018 in the Wadja matter states at paragraph 6 that:

At sovereignty, ancestors of the Claim group were associated with the Claim area. These ancestors acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs in common with, and as part of, a broader group of persons (“the broader Gangalu normative system”). Pursuant to the traditional laws and customs of the broader Gangalu normative system, the ancestors possessed rights and interests in relation to the land and waters of the Claim area.

The circumstances of the present interlocutory applications

14    Ms Snape deposes that the State has received a considerable number of documents, with a large number of those received after the time for compliance had passed.

15    She has reviewed a number of the expert reports filed on behalf of each of the applicants. As may be expected, they are lengthy.

16    In addition to documents filed pursuant to programming orders, Ms Snape and other Crown Law lawyers have written to the applicants’ legal representatives requesting source documents considered by the applicants’ experts for use by the State’s expert. Those requests began in April 2018.

The outstanding issues

17    On 16 October 2018, Ms Snape emailed a common letter to each of the applicants’ legal representatives noting the Court’s proposal to hold joint expert sessions and requesting permission for the State’s expert (and, it would follow, experts of other parties involved) to have access to documents filed in each of the individual matters, and source documents referred to in them, across the four matters and where necessary to refer to and comment upon that material in the other matters. The letter stated:

I refer to each of the above proceedings which have been progressing in accordance with a common set of trial programming orders made in each individual matter.

In particular, I note the email from Mr Rodd of the Federal Court dated 19 September 2018 regarding the expert conferences listed for 14-16 November 2018. The Court does not propose to hold an expert conference in each of the four matters. Such conferences would typically only involve the Applicant and the State. Rather, the Court proposes to hold conference in two or more matters where apicals are shared or the claim area overlaps, as well as a regional conference involving all four claims.

The State considers that the proposed joint expert conferences are unworkable in the absence of agreement that material received in one matter may be referred to generally across the cluster.

To illustrate the issue, the State presently holds the Joint Report on Society authored by Drs de Rijke, Martin and Gorring and Mr McMcaul dated 21 May 2018 on an open basis for use in Western Kangoulu and Wadja, but on a confidential basis only in Gaangalu. A second Joint Report by Drs de Rijke, Martin and Gorring concerning common apicals dated 31 May 2018 is held openly for use in Western Kangoulu but not at all in Gaangalu. It is unsatisfactory and unworkable to hold and refer to identical material in one proceeding on an open basis but not in others.

Accordingly, the State seeks your agreement to enable it to access all of the documents filed in each of the individual proceedings, and their source documents, on an open basis so that they may be looked at, and where necessary referred to and commented upon, by the State’s expert.

Your agreement is sought by 12pm on Thursday 18 October 2018.

In the absence of agreement from all Applicant parties, I’m instructed that the State will seek to have the matter relisted.

18    On 17 and 18 October 2018 Ms Snape received written responses to the 16 October letter.

19    Mr Besley, for the applicant in the Wulli Wulli application, agreed to the State accessing all documents filed in the proceedings on an open basis for the purpose of allowing the State’s expert to provide comment. The Wulli Wulli applicant did not appear at the hearing of the interlocutory applications and consented to the interlocutory orders sought.

20    Mr Saylor, for the applicant in the Gaangalu application, said, so far as presently relevant:

Joint Expert Statements

On 2 October 2018, the Applicant provided to the State the following report on a confidential and without prejudice basis:

‘Joint Statement in Relation to Society for the Gaangalu Nation People, Western Kangoulu and Wadja Native Title Claims’. Dr de Rijke, Dr Martin, Dr Gorring, & Mr McCaul (2018).

On 5 October 2018, the State requested access to the above report and the following report on an open basis:

‘Joint Statement in relation to Common Apical Ancestors on the Western Kangolou (sic) and Gaangalu Nation People Native Title Claim’. (Dr de Rijke, Dr Martin, & Dr Gorring (2018).

Please also note that the following report has also been prepared:

‘Gaangalu Nation People and Wulli Wulli#3 - Confidential Report of Conference of Experts held in Brisbane on 28 June 2018’. Dr de Rijke and Dr Powell (2018).

We note that Just us Lawyers wrote to the State on 17 October 2018 confirming that the State has access to, “... all documents filed in the proceedings on an open basis ...”. We assume this includes access to the Gaanaglu and Wulli Wulli#3 Conference of Experts Report (2018).

We also note that the State already has access to all the above reports and please advise if this is not the case.

I am instructed that the State is granted access to review each of the above reports on an open basis and in accordance with the State's correspondence of 16 October 2018.

Nevertheless, at the hearing of the State’s interlocutory applications, the Gaangalu Nation People opposed the orders sought by the State.

21    Mr Neal, for the applicant in the Western Kangoulu application, relevantly said:

Western Kangoulu have provided material in support of their claim on an open basis, subject to the general undertaking that it be used for the Western Kangoulu proceeding and for no other purpose. We have no instructions that the material filed in the Western Kangoulu proceeding be used for any other purpose, and do not anticipate receiving those instructions.

The Applicant would object to the State seeking to rely, in another proceeding, on material filed in the Western Kangoulu proceeding. I note that order 7 of the Orders of 16 August 2017 requires a conference of the expert witnesses for the parties in the Western Kangoulu proceeding to attend a conference for the purpose of narrowing or removing any differences in their relevant opinions. Order 7 does not extend to other proceedings and I do not believe that it extends beyond the resolution of differences of opinion based on evidence openly available to the State.

…

To the extent that the State’s expert’s opinion is based on material commonly and openly available across other proceedings, our client is prepared for Dr Martin to engage jointly with the experts of those proceedings and the State, but not otherwise.

We note that no indigenous people dispute the Western Kangoulu proceeding. It has no overlap with any other claim. We also note that the Applicant in the Western Kangoulu proceeding has never supported the joint conduct of the matters referred to in your letter.

As the State has access to all the relevant material in relation to the Western Kangoulu matter, we see no reason whatsoever to have the matter relisted before the conference of experts.

22    Ms Ridge, for the applicant in the Wadja application, has informed Ms Snape that she anticipated Wadja would adopt the same position as Western Kangoulu.

23    Ms Snape deposed that Dr Anna Kenny, the State’s nominated expert across the four matters, stated that she would take considerably longer to write the expert report if she was not permitted to refer generally to source materials or opinions relating to the four matters.

24    Dr Kenny also informed Ms Snape that the filing of separate reports which referred only to material from a single matter would result “in fractured reporting” which would not give the whole picture across the four matters.

Submissions

25    The State submitted that the interlocutory relief sought was not intended to pre-empt any question of admissibility of any of the material referred to, nor to detract from the taking of proper objection to the admissibility of any part of the material, including on relevance grounds.

26    The State had been corresponding with the representatives of the various parties since April 2018, wherein the State had sought consent that identified material be provided on an open basis and that each applicant consented to the identified material being considered in each of the other claims in the four matters. Consent had not been readily forthcoming, and some applicants opposed that course. Whilst documents had trickled in over time and the consent to use material on an open basis had also been the subject of exchanges of correspondence, the issue of use of the material across the claims remained unresolved.

27    The State submitted that the correspondence from the Court in relation to the proposed joint expert process and the request to agree on documentation have meant that the issue of access to filed material in the various matters by experts engaged by the parties now needed to be clearly resolved.

28    The State relied on the statements of Dr Kenny which I have set out at [23]-[24] above and submitted that such a course would not be an efficient outcome.

29    The State referred to s 37M(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rr 1.32, 1.33, 30.11 and 34.134 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

30    The State emphasised what it referred to as three commonalities of factual issues arising across the filed applications: first that each of the claim groups was part of a broader regional society, second that some of the claim groups were described by reference to descent from identified apical ancestors and third that there was a geographical overlap in the area of land claimed between the Gaangalu and Wulli Wulli claims. Three identified apical ancestors were common to both the Gaangalu and the Wadja claim, and three identified ancestors were common to both the Gaangalu and the Western Kangoulu claim.

31    Counsel for the Western Kangoulu People submitted that his clients did not wish to engage in proceedings extending beyond their current claim. He submitted that while there were some commonalities, these related to regional societies, which were unremarkable, and some common apical ancestors with the Gaangalu and with the Wadja People and not with the Wulli Wulli People.

32    Counsel for the Western Kangoulu People submitted that the process would dramatically increase the scale of their litigation and its expense and would spread the evidence, contrary to the implied undertaking, across another three claims. Inconvenience would follow, it was submitted, if the orders sought were granted as, having participated in the experts’ conference, the State’s experts would be able to cross refer and substantially increase the scale of the evidence where the Western Kangoulu People would have no control. It was submitted that the scope and scale of the experts’ conference would be beyond what the case management judge had in mind as it had not been envisaged that there would necessarily be a joint conference of all the experts in all of the claims.

33    Counsel for the Gaangalu Nation People adopted the Western Kangoulu People’s submissions summarised at [32] above, adding that it was not practical to confine access to experts; the present timetable was a demanding one and the State’s application had been brought too late; and that his client would be disadvantaged vis-à-vis the State.

34    Counsel for the Wadja People adopted the submissions made in opposition to the State’s interlocutory applications, added that the proposal was unworkable in the context of the current programming orders and submitted that the effect of the orders sought was to consolidate the four proceedings by stealth.

35    In the course of their submissions, counsel for the Western Kangoulu People, the Gaangalu Nation People and the Wadja People submitted that the hearing of the State’s interlocutory applications should be adjourned. I was not persuaded that any of those parties might benefit from an adjournment of the applications and counsel did not identify any such benefit. No factual or legal issues were identified which those parties were not able to advance. Ultimately those applications for an adjournment were not pressed.

Consideration

36    As may be seen, the submissions on behalf of those opposing the State’s interlocutory applications tended to travel beyond the key issues raised by those applications which are whether there is a special feature of the case which affords a reason for modifying or releasing the undertaking and is not usually present, and whether there are any discretionary considerations.

37    The most significant discretionary consideration is the likely contribution of the document to achieving justice in the other proceedings. In my opinion, matters of pure case management are not of substantial weight at this point, particularly when it is not known whether the potential effect of the orders sought is small or large.

38    I am not persuaded that any of the submissions put on behalf of those opposing the State’s interlocutory applications provides a basis to disentitle the State from the orders which it sought, if there was a proper basis for those orders granting leave to the State to use documents or information in one or more of the three applications, other than the application in which the documents or information were disclosed.

39    For example, there is no evidence, and it is not self-evident, that the orders sought will increase the scale of any party’s litigation. What I do find is that there are some commonalities across the four matters and the State needs to address, for example, the regional society contended for in each matter and should as a matter of achieving justice in the other three of the four matters be permitted do so with reference to material which is not confined to each individual matter alone.

40    In Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; 235 CLR 125 at [96] the plurality judgment stated the Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 (Harman v Home Office) obligation as follows:

Where one party to litigation is compelled, either by reason of a rule of court, or by reason of a specific order of the court, or otherwise, to disclose documents or information, the party obtaining the disclosure cannot, without the leave of the court, use it for any purpose other than that for which it was given unless it is received into evidence…

41    I have described the documents sought to be provided to the parties’ experts at [5] above. The categories of documents include lay affidavits, expert reports, outlines of evidence and notices to adduce. It is well established that the Harman v Home Office obligation attaches to these categories of documents: Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217 at 223; Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq); Ex Parte Macks (1998) 30 ACSR 156 at 160; Owners – Units Plan No. 3676 v Morris Construction Corp Pty Ltd [2018] ACTSC 149 at [9]-[12].

42    Each of these documents was disclosed by the relevant party pursuant to orders of the Court. A Harman v Home Office obligation is therefore owed by the receiving party to the Court in respect of each of these documents. I note that, as the obligation is owed to the Court, the attitude of the party which produced the document is not determinative of whether the party under the obligation should be released. It is, however, relevant to that question: see [45] below.

43    The Harman v Home Office obligation has a content which does not trespass on an inconsistent legal obligation: see Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited [2008] FCA 398; ATPR 42-224 at [13]. Another way of framing that proposition is that compliance with such a compulsory procedure is not relevantly a use of the documents in question: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rennie Produce (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCAFC 38 at [37].

44    Presently, no Court order has been made, or other relevant compulsory step taken, which requires the State or any other party to provide the documents in question to the parties’ experts for purposes relating to the proposed conferences. Although orders in each proceeding require that there be a conference or conferences before a Registrar, the proposal that those conferences be held jointly derives from the 19 September 2018 email from the Senior Native Title Case Manager. It follows that leave of the Court is required to allow that proposed use.

45    The question whether leave should be granted is based on whether there are “special circumstances”: Crest Homes PLC v Marks [1987] AC 829 at 860. As Burchett J said in Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 576 at 578-9, the expression “special circumstances” is “liable to be misunderstood unless care it taken to ask and answer the question, special in relation to what?”. The test was considered by Wilcox J in Springfield Nominees at 225, where his Honour said:

… For “special circumstances” to exist it is enough that there is a special feature of the case which affords a reason for modifying or releasing the undertaking and is not usually present. The matter then becomes one of the proper exercise of the court’s discretion, many factors being relevant. It is neither possible nor desirable to propound an exhaustive list of those factors. But plainly they include the nature of the document, the circumstances under which it came into existence, the attitude of the author of the document and any prejudice the author may sustain, whether the document pre-existed litigation or was created for that purpose and therefore expected to enter the public domain, the nature of the information in the document (in particular whether it contains personal data or commercially sensitive information), the circumstances in which the document came into the hands of the applicant for leave and, perhaps most important of all, the likely contribution of the document to achieving justice in the second proceeding.

In Australian Trade Commission v McMahon (1997) 73 FCR 211, Lehane J, at 217, cited both these cases in support of the proposition that special circumstances will “fairly readily be found where it is established that the use of documents discovered in a proceeding is reasonably required for the purpose of doing justice between the parties in other proceedings”.

46    In my opinion there are special circumstances which justify releasing the State and the other parties from any Harman v Home Office obligation they owe in respect of the documents received by them. This conclusion is based on a number of reasons.

47    First, and principally, as Ms Snape’s evidence demonstrates, it is clear at this interlocutory stage that there is the potential for evidentiary overlap in the four proceedings. It follows that use of the documents from one proceeding in the joint conferences has the potential for achieving justice in each of the other proceedings, as well as expediting their progression to final determination.

48    This consideration is particularly strong in the case of the Waangalu and Wulli Wulli #3 applications, which currently concern partly overlapping claim areas: see s 67(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). As I have found at [39] above, there are factual commonalities between the four proceedings.

49    Second, for present purposes and until further order, use of the documents will be confined to the experts and the purposes of the four proceedings. This operates to remove prejudice to the authors of the documents and the producing party.

50    Third, no party has established that any of the documents relevantly contain personal data or commercially sensitive information, but in any event accepted that making material available to experts would not prejudice any such interest.

51    Fourth, the documents in question were produced by one of the applicants in the four proceedings, and not by a third party. Each of those applicants will be represented in the experts’ conference, a process itself designed to narrow issues in dispute and expedite the efficient progress of the proceedings.

52    In my opinion, the use of the documents or information by the State and by each of the applicants is reasonably required for the purposes of doing justice between the parties in the other proceedings. There is actual or potential overlap. I also refer in particular to the unchallenged statements of Dr Kenny, the State’s nominated expert across the four matters, that the nature of the pleadings in the four matters requires the State to address the regional society contended for in each matter but, unless the orders sought by the State are made, she may only do so with reference to material in each individual matter alone. Further, Dr Kenny has informed Ms Snape that the filing of separate reports referring only to material from a single matter would result in fractured reporting which would not give the whole picture across the four matters.

Orders

53    In each matter, I make orders in the following form:

1.    Until further order, each of the documents filed by the applicants in each of Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017 as described in the table at paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Kristy Elizabeth Snape sworn 19 October 2018, or to be filed, be available to each of those parties’ experts, to the experts engaged by the State and to any expert retained by Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

2.    Each of the documents filed, or to be filed, by the State of Queensland, in each of Wadja People QUD422/2012, Western Kangoulu QUD229/2013 and Wulli #3 (Part A) QUD619/2017, or the State of Queensland, Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty in Gaangalu Nation People QUD400/2012, be available to each of those applicants’ experts, to the experts engaged by the State and to any expert retained by Mr Trevor Lamb or Ms Pamela Hegarty, to refer to and comment upon in any of those matters.

3.    Orders 1 and 2 are to be read as extending to any of the source documents referred to in the expert reports filed in those named proceedings.

4.    Orders 1 and 2 are without prejudice to any party’s position in respect of the further case management of each matter; any interlocutory or final hearing of each matter; or the admissibility of evidence in each matter.

5.    The material received pursuant to orders 1 and 2 is to be used for the purposes of one or more of the named proceedings only.

6.     There be liberty to apply in respect of these orders, on 2 days notice.

54    The present timetabling orders may well need to be adjusted, but that is a matter the parties may take up with the case management judge or Registrar.

Associate:

Dated:    29 October 2018