Lamond (No 4) [2017] FCA 820

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lamond (No 4) [2017] FCA 820 File number: SAD 333 of 2016

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 5 July 2017

Date of publication of reasons: 24 July 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application seeking orders for production of documents pursuant to prior search orders, r 7.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and discovery and non-party discovery rules – where certain documents now sought to be produced were not in existence at the time the search was carried out – where the true nature of the orders sought is one for discovery and inspection – where there are only sufficient grounds to support orders for non-party discovery as against two respondents – where the Court is otherwise not satisfied that the proposed applicant has established the documents sought are, or are likely to be, directly relevant. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application seeking orders for production of documents pursuant to Notices to Produce under r 20.31 – whether affidavits in which the documents are mentioned are "spent" where the applications they respond to were not pursued by the proposed applicant – where affidavits are to be relied upon in another proceeding – where documents are mentioned sufficiently for the purposes of the rule. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application seeking orders for additional searches of seized material – where the previous orders for access were made by consent whereas the orders now sought are opposed – consideration of the decision in Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra (No 3) [2008] FCA 1201 – where documents are being sought as substitute for discovery or in tandem with, or as an adjunct to, the discovery process. CORPORATIONS – consideration of an application seeking an order under r 7.01 or s 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that a director authorise payment of employee wages and entitlements as and when requested – where director proffered undertaking which is fair and reasonable – where application seeks an order under r 7.01 or s 1324 of the Act that the company reimburse the proposed applicant a sum of money – where company is not represented before the Court – where the directors are engaged as bitter protagonists in litigation before the Court – where such an order would involve the Court recognising and enforcing a debt.