Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 1147

Federal Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 1147 File number: NSD 2064 of 2019

Judgment of: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 28 July 2022

Catchwords: DISCOVERY – second defendant's application for discovery of documents relating to separate administrative proceedings conducted by plaintiff in respect of a former director of the first defendant – application opposed by plaintiff on the basis that the documents sought were not "directly relevant" to the issues in the present proceeding as required by r 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – issue of admissibility under s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – consideration of Lander J's judgment in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (Formerly Pirelli Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.P.A.) & Ors (No 4) (2012) 298 ALR 251; [2012] FCA 1323 – no legitimate forensic purpose for seeking discovery established – application dismissed with costs

Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 57(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 206F, 206F(1)(b), 920A, 920A(2), 920B Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 91 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.14, 20.14(1)(a), 20.14(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 91

Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.R.L. (Formerly Pirelli Cavi E Sistemi Energia S.P.A.) & Ors (No 4) (2012) 298 ALR 251; [2012] FCA 1323 Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 5 Laycock v Forbes & Australian Securities Commission (1997) 150 ALR 186 Panayi v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2017) 319 FLR 228; [2017] NSWCA 93 Sage v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2005] FCA 1043 Visnic v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2007) 231 CLR 381