Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 4) [2024] FCA 51 File number(s): VID 520 of 2022
Judgment of: O'BRYAN J
Date of judgment: 5 February 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for discovery – where categories of discovery sought by applicant impermissibly broad and not directed to issues in proceeding – where limited discovery appropriate to ensure documents relevant to jurisdictional fact are before the Court – limited order for discovery made
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 42A, 44 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) ss 33, 48, 100, 103 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.11, 20.15 Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Practice Note (ACLHR-1)
Cases cited: Carmody v MacKellar (1996) 68 FCR 265 Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 21; (1979) 24 ALR 307 Jilani v Wilhelm (2005) 148 FCR 255 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Economic Regulation Authority [2014] WASC 346 Saint v Holmes (No 1) [2005] FCA 1057
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
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