CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v Cardno Hard & Forester Pty Limited; CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) v Cardno Hard & Forester Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 775

CTI Joint Venture Company Pty Ltd v Cardno Hard & Forester Pty Limited; CRI Chatswood Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) v Cardno Hard & Forester Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 775

The broad discovery sought was not justified because the reliance, causation and vulnerability bases were founded on an erroneous conception of the plaintiffs' pleaded case and the relevant legal tests, and the proportionate liability basis was a fishing expedition insofar as it concerned consultants not pleaded as concurrent wrongdoers. Discovery was warranted only in relation to the pleaded certifier and its director, if they were part of the due diligence process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Alleging Negligence and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct; Interlocutory Discovery Motion / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 26 May 2017 Seeking Discovery, Before a Hearing Fixed to Commence on 14 August 2018
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to give limited discovery; defendant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'due Diligence Documents' 'reliance and Causation' 'vulnerability' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'fishing Expedition']
['practice and Procedure' 'negligence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pure Economic Loss' 'proportionate Liability'] ['discovery' 'due Diligence Documents' 'reliance and Causation' 'vulnerability' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'fishing Expedition']

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

Proceedings Alleging Negligence and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct; Interlocutory Discovery Motion / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 26 May 2017 Seeking Discovery, Before a Hearing Fixed to Commence on 14 August 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' request for discovery of documents evidencing or recording advice given to the plaintiffs during the due diligence process was justified by issues of reliance and causation." "Whether the requested discovery was justified by the plaintiffs' pleaded vulnerability and inability to protect themselves from the consequences of the alleged negligence." "Whether the requested discovery was justified by the defendants' pleaded or possible proportionate liability case concerning concurrent wrongdoers." 'Whether discovery should be limited to documents concerning the identified certifier and its director.']

Ratio Decidendi

The broad discovery sought was not justified because the reliance, causation and vulnerability bases were founded on an erroneous conception of the plaintiffs' pleaded case and the relevant legal tests, and the proportionate liability basis was a fishing expedition insofar as it concerned consultants not pleaded as concurrent wrongdoers. Discovery was warranted only in relation to the pleaded certifier and its director, if they were part of the due diligence process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to give limited discovery; defendant's notice of motion otherwise dismissed; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs give discovery in terms of the amended proposed category of discovery as further amended by the Court and initialled and dated 9 June 2017.' 'The discovery is to be given in respect of the identified certifier company and its director only.' "The defendant's notice of motion filed on 26 May 2017...