Shakil v Goyal [2015] NSWDC 427

Shakil v Goyal [2015] NSWDC 427

The discovery sought by Migration Centre was too wide and excessively onerous because it covered 1,021 listed persons who may not have dealt with Migration Centre during Mr Shakil's employment, and s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 required proportionality between discovery and possible damages; discovery was therefore confined to persons for whom Mr Shakil had done work after 6 September 2013 and who had made payments to Migration Centre between 1 July 2011 and 6 September 2013, together with other limited categories.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Involving Claim for Unpaid Moneys and Cross Claim for Damages for Breach of Agreements / Procedural Ruling on Cross Claimant's Notice of Motion for Discovery
Outcome
Motion for discovery allowed in limited terms; procedural directions made for mediation, hearing, costs and liberty to re-list.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'proportionality' 'costs' 'mediation Directions']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'proportionality' 'costs' 'mediation Directions']

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

Civil Proceeding Involving Claim for Unpaid Moneys and Cross Claim for Damages for Breach of Agreements / Procedural Ruling on Cross Claimant's Notice of Motion for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff/cross-defendant should give discovery of documents concerning dealings with persons said to have a connection with the cross-claimant's business." 'Whether the discovery category sought by the cross-claimant was too wide or excessively onerous.' 'What costs order should be made on the discovery motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery sought by Migration Centre was too wide and excessively onerous because it covered 1,021 listed persons who may not have dealt with Migration Centre during Mr Shakil's employment, and s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 required proportionality between discovery and possible damages; discovery was therefore confined to persons for whom Mr Shakil had done work after 6 September 2013 and who had made payments to Migration Centre between 1 July 2011 and 6 September 2013, together with other limited categories.

Court Disposition

Motion for discovery allowed in limited terms; procedural directions made for mediation, hearing, costs and liberty to re-list.

Orders

  • ['Direct the cross-claimant to prepare a list of persons from whom the cross-claimant received payments for migration services in the period 1 July 2011 to 6 September 2013.' 'Order the plaintiff to give discovery of all tax returns lodged by the cross-defendant for the financial years ending 30 June 2009 to 30 June...