Lawyers for litigation

Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son PL [2025] FCA 26

Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son PL [2025] FCA 26

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for orders for preservation of documents – where orders made referring the issue of the extent and nature of discovery for consideration at a conference by a registrar – where applicant alleges that system updates to computing software used by the respondent may compromise the discovery process – whether likely that documents will be lost or destroyed – whether preservation orders appropriate in the circumstances – held materials in support of application do not reveal a basis for concern that critical documents will be destroyed or lost – orders as sought by the applicant would circumvent the conference to be convened before the registrar – application dismissed


Related cases – asset preservation orders

  • Ripani v Century Legend Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 812

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – scope of new trial – where trial judge held the respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to apartment sold off-the-plan – where trial judge found render contained in marketing materials conveyed misleading and deceptive representations – where Full Court held the primary judge had erred in rejecting…

  • Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 4) [2023] FCA 834

    CORPORATIONS – pecuniary penalties – where second respondent provided a prohibited interactive gambling service – where second respondent is in default – contravention of s 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) – appropriate penalty to achieve general deterrence – consideration of factors which inform appropriate level of penalty applied – penalty fixed

  • AgriWealth Capital Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited [2023] FCAFC 118

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where the Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (‘AFCA’) determined that the second respondent’s complaint was partially within the Australian Financial Complaints Authority Complaint Resolution Scheme Rules – where the appellants contended that AFCA did not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint – appeal from decision of primary judge that AFCA had jurisdiction…

Send this to a friend