Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – preliminary discovery – O 15A r 6 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) – admissibility of evidence not complying with strict rules of evidence – character of preliminary discovery – applicant's reasonable cause to believe – application for preliminary discovery is interlocutory – application ancillary to underlying federal 'matter' – discretion to waive rules of evidence – undue expense and delay. WORDS AND PHRASES – "reasonable cause to believe"
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 15A r 3, O 15A r 6 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 75, 190(3)(b)
C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864 considered Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 192 ALR 561 cited Edmunds-Jones Pty Ltd v Australian Women's Hockey Association Inc [1999] NSWSC 285 cited George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 cited Hooper v Kirella (1999) FCR 1 considered Jakiemiec v Buckingham [2007] FamCA 542 cited John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco (1988) 165 CLR 346 distinguished John Holland Services Pty Ltd v Terranora Group Management Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 679 cited Kendell v Moraitis (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Hunt CJ, 18 December 1991) cited Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCA 332 considered Levis v McDonald (1997) 75 FCR 36 not followed London Economics (Aust) Pty Ltd v Frontier Economics Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 932 considered Malouf v Malouf [1999] FCA 710 cited Malouf v Malouf (1999) 86 FCR 134 considered Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 cited Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1348 referred to Quanta Software International Pty Ltd v Computer Management Services Pty Ltd (2000) 175 ALR 536 cited Sanofi v Parke & Davis Pty Ltd (No 1) (1982) 149 CLR 147 cited Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited v Smith [2005] FCA 228 cited St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 147 cited Stewart v Miller (1979) 2 NSWLR 128 considered Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No. 3) [2007] FCA 1567 cited The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v The Guide Dog Owners & Friends Association [1990] VR 451 considered Waterhouse v Shelley [2007] FamCA 541 cited Williams Advanced Materials Inc. v Target Technology Co. LLC (2004) 63 IPR 645 cited OPTIVER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 077 364 366) v TIBRA TRADING PTY LTD (ACN 117 881 759), TIBRA CAPITAL PTY LTD (ACN 120 313 395), TIBRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 124 402 160), TIBRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PTY LTD (ACN 120 338 445), DINESH BHANDARI, GLENN WILLIAMSON, TIMOTHY BERRY, ANDREW KING AND KINSEY COTTON NSD 1116 OF 2007
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate