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

  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Booktopia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 194

    CONSUMER LAW – civil penalties – misleading or deceptive conduct – false or misleading representations relating to notification requirements, returns and refunds and obligation to remedy – where the defendant admitted liability for contraventions – where the plaintiff and defendant prepared a statement of agreed facts and jointly proposed remedies – declarations – pecuniary penalties…

  • Sanofi v Amgen Inc. [2023] FCA 264

    PATENTS – whether order for discovery of documents should be made in appeal pursuant to s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether appellant should be granted leave to rely on experimental proof pursuant to r 34.50(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in said appeal Held: discovery refused – leave under r 34.50(2)(b) granted…

  • Leviston v PQ Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 295

    PRACTICE – leave sought pursuant to r 23.03(2)(a) to cross-examine Court expert – expert valued shares in a company which was the subject of oppression proceedings – proposed cross-examination to address valuation methodology – no point of principle   Related cases on Shareholder oppression

Send this to a friend