The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1656

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1656

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – further and better discovery – relevance of additional documents sought – whether additional discovery oppressive – legal professional privilege – whether privilege resides in party claiming it – location of inspection THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA v BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY, SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122), CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REG NO 1001005) BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY v THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, YAN CHEN SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) v THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA WAD 292 OF 2004

FRENCH J

1 DECEMBER 2006

SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 292 OF 2004

BETWEEN: THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Applicant

AND: BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY

First Respondent

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122)

Second Respondent

CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED

(REG NO 1001005)

Third Respondent

BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY

First Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First Cross-Respondent to First Cross-Claim

YAN CHEN

Second Cross-Respondent to First Cross-Claim

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122)

Second Cross-Claimant

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Cross-Respondent to Second Cross-Claim

JUDGE: FRENCH J DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A. On the Applicant's minute of orders for proposed further discovery:

1. On or before Friday, 8 December 2006, the First Respondent is to produce for inspection by the Applicant any document relating to the due diligence process undertaken by or on behalf of the Second Respondent in 2000 which is not enumerated in the letter from the solicitors for the Second Respondent dated 24 November 2006.