Barescape Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Vs Family Trust) and Anor v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for the Bacchus Holdings Trust and Anor [2011] NSWSC 437

Barescape Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Vs Family Trust) and Anor v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for the Bacchus Holdings Trust and Anor [2011] NSWSC 437

Given the mandatory obligation to further the overriding purpose, the repeated production of verified Lists of Documents indicated a problem with discovery, and finality was needed to avoid further costs, particularly expert costs. It was appropriate, cost efficient and consistent with the overriding purpose of the Act and Rules to allow cross-examination of the second defendant about the documents available for discovery for the purpose of instructing the expert.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Plaintiffs' Application for Leave to Cross Examine the Second Defendant in Respect of the Discovery Process
Outcome
Cross-examination permitted
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'cross Examination on Discovery' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['discovery' 'cross Examination on Discovery' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']

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 / Plaintiffs' Application for Leave to Cross Examine the Second Defendant in Respect of the Discovery Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to cross-examine the second defendant in respect of discovery after the defendants had filed five verified Lists of Documents and agreed to file a sixth verified List of Documents.' 'Whether the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 supported allowing cross-examination to achieve finality and cost efficiency in the discovery process.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the mandatory obligation to further the overriding purpose, the repeated production of verified Lists of Documents indicated a problem with discovery, and finality was needed to avoid further costs, particularly expert costs. It was appropriate, cost efficient and consistent with the overriding purpose of the Act and Rules to allow cross-examination of the second defendant about the documents available for discovery for the purpose of instructing the expert.

Court Disposition

Cross-examination permitted

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiffs to cross-examine the second defendant.']