G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 10) [2023] NSWSC 1240

G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 10) [2023] NSWSC 1240

No further production of the notebooks was warranted because the consent order required MACH's solicitor to review the notebooks and disclose only entries falling within specified categories; Mr Muir reviewed each page, identified entries by reference to those categories and produced a further 50 pages; CDJV gave no reason to doubt the review and did not connect the undisclosed material glimpsed on reverse pages to the relevant disclosure categories.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List; Procedural Ruling Concerning Discovery / On the Papers; Submissions Received 10 and 16 October 2023
Outcome
No further disclosure of Mr Purnamasidi's notebooks required.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'further and Better Discovery' 'disclosure Categories' 'redaction for Irrelevance' 'notebooks of Director of Cross Claimants']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'further and Better Discovery' 'disclosure Categories' 'redaction for Irrelevance' 'notebooks of Director of Cross Claimants']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List; Procedural Ruling Concerning Discovery / On the Papers; Submissions Received 10 and 16 October 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether MACH should be required to produce the whole of Mr Purnamasidi's spiral-bound notebooks after its solicitor reviewed the notebooks and discovered entries falling within specified disclosure categories." "Whether CDJV had shown a basis to doubt MACH's solicitor's review or to require production of notebook pages said generally to relate to the project for contextual reasons."]

Ratio Decidendi

No further production of the notebooks was warranted because the consent order required MACH's solicitor to review the notebooks and disclose only entries falling within specified categories; Mr Muir reviewed each page, identified entries by reference to those categories and produced a further 50 pages; CDJV gave no reason to doubt the review and did not connect the undisclosed material glimpsed on reverse pages to the relevant disclosure categories.

Court Disposition

No further disclosure of Mr Purnamasidi's notebooks required.

Orders

  • ['No further orders were made in relation to the notebooks.']