Hurley v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 124

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hurley v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 124 DISCOVERY – right of applicant to demand documents kept or produced by licensees or franchisees of the respondent to the action – entitlement to information or reports does not imply an entitlement to actual possession or control of documents JANETTE LYN HURLEY v McDONALD'S AUSTRALIA LIMITED Q 194 of 1999 DOWSETT J 11 FEBRUARY 2000 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 194 OF 1999

BETWEEN: JANETTE LYN HURLEY

APPLICANT

AND: McDONALD'S AUSTRALIA LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. No order be made with respect to documents in the possession of McDonald's franchisees. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 194 OF 1999

BETWEEN: JANETTE LYN HURLEY

APPLICANT

AND: McDONALD'S AUSTRALIA LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE: 11 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 For present purposes, it is relevant to distinguish between retail stores operated by the respondent and those operated by franchisees pursuant to licence agreements entered into with the respondent. There are in each store documents which are at least arguably relevant to these proceedings. 2 The case has been conducted substantially upon the basis that, from a substantive point of view, no distinction is to be drawn between the respondent and the various franchisees. However, throughout the hearing, it has been made clear by the respondent that it is not necessarily in a position to discover documents in the possession of franchisees which may be relevant for present purposes. As much appears, for example, at p 1384 of the transcript relating to proceedings on 21 October last year. 3 It is now submitted on behalf of the applicant that the respondent has an obligation pursuant to an order for discovery to discover documents in the possession of franchisees. I do not construe the order for discovery in that way, and it is quite clear from the passage in the transcript to which I have referred that the parties were not proceeding upon that basis during the earlier part of the hearing.