Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 481

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 481 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Order sought for specified gross sum instead of taxed costs – Notice to produce – Relevance of party's financial position – Federal Court Rules O 33 r 12(1) and O 62 r 4(2)(c)

Federal Court Rules O 33 r12(1) and ) 62 r 4(2)(c)

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119, considered Leary v Leary [1987] 1 WLR 72; [1987] 1 All ER 261, considered ALBERT HADID v LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC AND GERRY LENFEST AND BAIN CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED AND WAYNE BURT AND AUSTRALIS MEDIA LIMITED AND RODNEY PRICE N 36 OF 1995 LEHANE J 14 APRIL 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 36 OF 1995

BETWEEN: ALBERT HADID

Applicant

AND: LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC

First Respondent

GERRY LENFEST

Second Respondent

BAIN CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED

Third Respondent

WAYNE BURT

Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIS MEDIA LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

RODNEY PRICE

Sixth Respondent

JUDGE: LEHANE J

DATE: 14 APRIL 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The sixth respondent seeks, by notice of motion, an order that the applicant produce to the Court certain documents listed in a notice to produce dated 7 February 2000, served on the applicant by the sixth respondent. A copy of the notice to produce is annexed to an affidavit read in support of the motion. It requires the production of documents evidencing the applicant's title to various categories of assets and documents evidencing his liabilities. Its effect may be summarised by saying that the documents called for might be expected to provide, with reasonable accuracy, information as to the assets which the applicant presently has and the debts and other liabilities which he presently owes. The applicant contends that he should not be required to produce documents in answer to the notice to produce: either the Court should set aside the notice to produce or it should "otherwise order" under O 33 r 12(1) of the Federal Court Rules (FCR). 2 On 24 December 1999 I delivered reasons for judgment and made final orders in this proceeding. The orders were that: