Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1365

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1365 PROCEDURE – discovery – notice to produce – without prejudice privilege – representative proceedings – where documents sought relate to settlement negotiations between respondent and group members in a representative proceeding – whether privilege extends to communications made between the party claiming the privilege and a third party – where documents are produced with names and addresses of group members obscured – whether applicant is entitled to see the names of the group members in the documents produced PROCEDURE – representative proceedings – order sought by applicant that respondent not communicate with members of the representative group Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 131(1) Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 followed O'Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 581 followed Cutts v Head [1984] 1 Ch 290 followed Field v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1957) 99 CLR 285 followed Harrington v Lowe (1996) 190 CLR 311 followed Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 considered Austotel Management Pty Ltd v Jamieson (1995) 57 FCR 411 referred to Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 185 referred to Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Coombes (1999) 92 FCR 240 considered Ralls v United States (1995) 52 F.3d 223 distinguished Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 3) [2000] FCA 1438 considered Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1037 referred to King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 270 distinguished Kleiner v First National Bank of Atlanta 751 F.2d 1193 (1985) considered Resnick v American Dental Association 95 F.R.D. 372 (1982) considered KEVIN GLYNN COURTNEY in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in whom St Jude Tempo Pacemakers were surgically implanted in Australia v MEDTEL PTY LIMITED N 661 OF 2000 STONE J 25 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY