Reading Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Birch Carroll & Coyle Ltd [2002] FCAFC 109

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Reading Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd v Birch Carroll & Coyle Ltd [2002] FCAFC 109 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application to extend time for making application for leave to appeal – application for leave to appeal and appeal from an interlocutory decision of primary Judge to Full Court – discovery – whether primary Judge erred in holding applicants not entitled to certain categories of documents – where complex commercial issues arising in relation to causes of action for exclusive dealing against certain parties and knowing concern in relation thereto against remaining parties – whether primary Judge erred in holding that similar fact documents sought in relation to geographical areas beyond the area of the market the subject of the alleged misuse of power could not be relevant to the purpose of the respondents' conduct in the market pleaded – whether categories of documents sought oppressive – role of appellate court in interlocutory applications. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 45, 46, 47, 52 Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136 followed Commonwealth of Australia v Northern Land Council (1991) 30 FCR 1 cited Compagnie Financičre et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55 cited F Hoffman-La Roche AG v Chiron Corporation & Anor (2000) 47 IPR 516 cited Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 followed Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 followed Trade Practices Commission v CC (New South Wales) Pty Limited (1995) 58 FCR 426 followed Butterworths, Practice & Procedure of the Federal Court Halsbury's Laws of England 4th ed, Vol 13

READING ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED V BIRCH CARROLL & COYLE LIMITED, VILLAGE ROADSHOW EXHIBITION PTY LIMITED, PACIFIC CINEMAS (GARDEN CITY) PTY LIMITED, AMP LIFE LIMITED, AMP HENDERSON GLOBAL INVESTORS LIMITED, VILLAGE ROADSHOW LIMITED AND PACIFIC CINEMAS (LOGANHOLME) PTY LIMITED