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

  • Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd [2025] FCA 44

    PATENTS – patent for controlled release aripiprazole formulations and methods for preparing and using such formulations – validity of extension of term of patent – validity of claims – whether pharmaceutical substance per se – whether pharmaceutical substance can include formulations – whether formulations can only include substances which have therapeutic use – whether pharmaceutical…

  • Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd [2025] FCA 44

    PATENTS – patent for controlled release aripiprazole formulations and methods for preparing and using such formulations – validity of extension of term of patent – validity of claims – whether pharmaceutical substance per se – whether pharmaceutical substance can include formulations – whether formulations can only include substances which have therapeutic use – whether pharmaceutical…

  • Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (Costs) [2025] FCA 38

    COSTS — where the applicants brought a claim of trade mark infringement against the respondent – where the respondent brought a cross-claim seeking the cancellation of the first applicant’s registered trade mark – where both the applicants’ claim and the respondent’s cross-claim failed – where the cross-claim was only ever defensive – whether the respondent…

Send this to a friend