Federal Court of Australia
CATCHNORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - scope of the expense or loss recoverable
under Order 27 Rule 4A - whether legal costs incurred in complying
with subpoena fall under Rule - whether such costs should be taxed on
solicitor and client basis.
Federal Court Rules: Order 27 rule 4A.
RESS LIMITED v. L.M. ICSSON PTY. LIMITED WAG 35 of 1986
LOCKHART J. 17 JULY 1987 SYDNEY
18 AUG 1987
FEDERAL COURT AUSTRALIA. On
PRiy mais
IN_THE
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FFDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NO. WAG 35 of 1986
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: FUELXPRFESS LIMITED Applicant/Cross Respondent AND: L.M. ERICSSON PTY. LIMITFD
Respondent /Cross-Claimant
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. DATE OF ORDER: 17 JULY 1987 WHERF ORDER MADE: SYDNEY
MINUTE OF ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
NOTE:
Pursuant to Order 27 Rule 4A the respondent L.M. Ericsson Pty. Limited pay to DMR & Associates Aust. Pty. Limited an amount which is sufficient to compensate it for the expense or loss which it reasonably incurred or lost in complyina with the subpoena issued by the respondent and served on DMP and that the amount shall be fixed by the Court's taxing
officer; and The amount so certified by the taxing officer be paid to DMP by the respondent within 21 days after the certificate of
taxation has issued.
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of
the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. WAG 35 of 1986
www ww
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: FUELXPRESS LIMITED Applicant/Cross Respondent
AND: L.M. ERICSSON PTY. LIMITED
Respondent /Cross-Claimant
17 July 1987
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOCKHART J.
A subpoena was issued by L.M. Ericsson Pty. Limited ("the respondent") directed to DMR & Associates Aust. Pty. Limited ("DMR") which is not a party to the litigation. The subpoena has been answered this morning. DMR was represented by its solicitor. Farlier this morning I made orders to protect the interests of DMR from disclosure of certain of the documents which it claimed were commercially sensitive and therefore confidential. I also made certain other orders with respect to other documents at the request of Fuelxpress Limited ("the applicant") restricting inspection by the respondent on the basis of the applicant's claim for legal professional privilege. Otherwise the bulk of the documents are to be
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate