Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) [2014] FCA 744 Citation: Taylor v Saloniklis (No 3) [2014] FCA 744
Parties: LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS v SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
File number: SAD 336 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 15 July 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for enforcement of prior standard discovery order and, in the alternative, for more extensive discovery – test for standard discovery – whether documents are "directly relevant" to the issues raised by the pleadings – test for standard discovery narrower than train of inquiry test – redaction of documents for production – whether order should be made for discovering party to redact or mask portions of documents not directly relevant to issues raised by the pleadings – rr 20.14 and 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Held: Orders for discovery made with respect to documents directly relevant to the issues raised by the pleadings.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.14, 20.15, 20.17, 20.22
Cases cited: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 366 Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) (2009) 253 ALR 354 Spyer v Cuddles 'N' Mum (Franchise) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1563
Date of hearing: 3 July 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
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