Michael v RJ Chalmers & Co;; Edwards v Causbrook & Associates;; Smidmore v RJ Chalmers & Co [2015] NSWSC 879

Michael v RJ Chalmers & Co;; Edwards v Causbrook & Associates;; Smidmore v RJ Chalmers & Co [2015] NSWSC 879

Documents in category 9 concerning the second defendant's involvement in claims by other clients, and documents in categories 5 and 6 concerning commissions, benefits and disclosure at times when the second defendant was advising the plaintiffs, could rationally affect assessment of facts in issue. They could bear on whether the second defendant knew or ought to have known that the investment products were deficient or questionable, on issues of duty and breach in negligence and contract, on misleading or deceptive conduct, and on the independence or motivation of the second defendant's advice. Discovery was not ordered for documents concerning investments recommended by Chalmers & Co...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Discovery / Notice of Motion by Plaintiffs Seeking Discovery of Categories of Documents
Outcome
Order for discovery made.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'economic Loss' 'investment Advice' 'commissions and Benefits' 'independence of Advice']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['discovery' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'economic Loss' 'investment Advice' 'commissions and Benefits' 'independence of Advice']

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

Practice and Procedure – Discovery / Notice of Motion by Plaintiffs Seeking Discovery of Categories of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents in category 9 concerning claims by other clients of the second defendant in relation to the investment products were relevant to facts in issue.' 'Whether documents in categories 5 and 6 concerning commissions or other financial and non-financial benefits received by the second defendant, and disclosure of those benefits, were relevant insofar as they related to other clients.' 'Whether discovery should extend to documents concerning investments said to have been recommended by Chalmers & Co where the foreshadowed claim had not been pleaded.']

Ratio Decidendi

Documents in category 9 concerning the second defendant's involvement in claims by other clients, and documents in categories 5 and 6 concerning commissions, benefits and disclosure at times when the second defendant was advising the plaintiffs, could rationally affect assessment of facts in issue. They could bear on whether the second defendant knew or ought to have known that the investment products were deficient or questionable, on issues of duty and breach in negligence and contract, on misleading or deceptive conduct, and on the independence or motivation of the second defendant's advice. Discovery was not ordered for documents concerning investments recommended by Chalmers & Co...

Court Disposition

Order for discovery made.

Orders

  • ['In each of the three proceedings, the second defendant is to provide discovery of the documents in categories 5, 6 & 9 relating to the investments referred to in the current amended statement of claim.' 'The Court will deal with any directions required and, if necessary, hear the parties on costs.']