Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Beaumont Hills Dental Surgery Pty Ltd v Goodarzi [2022] FCA 625 File number: NSD 1008 of 2020
Judgment of: KATZMANN J
Date of judgment: 30 May 2022
Catchwords: COSTS — application for preliminary discovery pursuant to r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) — where application brought to inform a decision as to whether a cross-claim for misuse of confidential information should be filed in a proceeding filed by prospective respondent which included claims for relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), whether preliminary discovery proceeding is subject to restrictions on costs in s 570 of that Act — where prospective respondent consented to preliminary discovery orders after prolonged opposition, whether prospective respondent should be ordered to pay prospective applicant's costs — where prospective respondent non-compliant with preliminary discovery orders and deleted messages the subject of the application after becoming aware that prospective applicant was considering legal action and after the preliminary discovery application was filed and a month before it was due to be heard discarded the phone on which they appeared, whether prospective respondent should pay costs incurred by prospective applicant after the orders were made — whether indemnity costs should be awarded — whether costs should be payable forthwith
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 570 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N, 43 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.23, 7.25, 20.17, 40.01
Cases cited: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v ALS Industrial Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (2015) 235 FCR 366 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864 Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Ltd (formerly known as Citicorp Australia Ltd) (No 2) [2007] FCA 179 Cobankara v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2017] FCA 419 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 DSE (Holdings) Pty Limited v InterTAN Inc [2004] FCA 1251 Energy Australia Yallourn Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2018) 264 FCR 342 Fountain v Alexander (1982) 150 CLR 615 Hamod v New South Wales [2002] FCAFC 97; 188 ALR 659 J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd v Becton Property Group Limited [2013] FCA 340 Joseph v Parnell Corporate Services Pty Ltd (2021) 284 FCR 546 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 116 Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner (2015) 229 FCR 221 ObjectiVision Pty Ltd v Visionsearch Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 304 One.Tel Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548 Panasonic Australia Pty Ltd v Ngage Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 399; 69 IPR 595 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 657 Procter v Kalivis (No 3) [2010] FCA 1194 Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union of Employees (Qld) (No 2) (1997) 189 CLR 654 Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 Stanley v Service to Youth Council Inc (No 3) (2014) 225 FCR 357 Steffen v ANZ Banking Group [2009] NSWSC 883
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