Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange [1995] FCA 666

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE and PROCEDURE - order made granting leave to inspect and use for business purposes of the respondent documents produced on subpoena - whether order should be varied or discharged - access to documents limited to legal representatives only upon production pursuant to subpoena - documents subsequently tendered in evidence - principles discussed. Federal Court Rules O 15 r 18 Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] AC 280 Springfield Nominees Pty Limited v Bridgelands Securities Limited (1992) 38 FCR 217 Bibby Bulk Carriers Ltd v Cansulex Ltd [1989] 1 QB 155 United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (S Ct, NSW, McLelland J, 7 May 1982, ED No 2094/81 - reported in NSW Supreme Court Procedure, p 8571) Eltran Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 25 FCR 322 CHAPMANS LIMITED v AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE No. NG 20 of 1994 Tamberlin J Sydney 25 August 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 20 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: CHAPMANS LIMITED (ACN 000 012 386) Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED (ACN 008 624 691) Respondent CORAM: TAMBERLIN J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 25 AUGUST 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Before me is a Notice of Motion by Alexanders Securities Limited ("Securities") and Alexanders Discount Pty Limited ("Discount") which seeks an order: "That the Order made in the proceedings on 10 July 1995 granting leave to any full time employee of the Respondent to inspect and use for the purposes of business of the Respondent documents supplied by Alexanders Securities Limited and Alexanders Discount Pty Ltd in these proceedings or by the Auditor Mr G Swan, be varied or discharged." Securities and Discount are related corporations to each other and to the applicant. I am informed that they have common directors.