Thiess v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia [2015] NSWSC 326

Thiess v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia [2015] NSWSC 326

The application for disclosure before evidence was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances necessitating disclosure or that the documents sought were necessary for the resolution of the real issues; the categories sought were overly broad, included 'wish list' items, and there was inadequate identification of the actual issues requiring disclosure. Delay in bringing the application and considerations of cost and efficiency also justified refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Disclosure Before Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['disclosure Before Evidence' 'practice Notes' 'interlocutory Procedure']
['civil Procedure'] ['disclosure Before Evidence' 'practice Notes' 'interlocutory Procedure']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Disclosure Before Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether disclosure before evidence should be ordered pursuant to the Practice Note SC Eq 11' 'Whether exceptional circumstances necessitate disclosure before evidence' 'Whether the documents sought are necessary for the resolution of the real issues in dispute']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for disclosure before evidence was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances necessitating disclosure or that the documents sought were necessary for the resolution of the real issues; the categories sought were overly broad, included 'wish list' items, and there was inadequate identification of the actual issues requiring disclosure. Delay in bringing the application and considerations of cost and efficiency also justified refusal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Amended notice of motion filed for the third defendant is dismissed with costs.']