Syndicate Mortgage Solutions Pty Ltd v Khaled El-Sayed & ors [2008] NSWSC 1396

Syndicate Mortgage Solutions Pty Ltd v Khaled El-Sayed & ors [2008] NSWSC 1396

The proposed further discovery order was refused because the relevant documents in proposed category 8 were already within the existing order and there was no evidence of incomplete discovery; proposed category 16 appeared privileged and no explanation showed how discovery without inspection would advance the case; proposed categories 17 and 18 were too broad and would capture documents not relevant to facts in issue; and proposed category 19 was an inappropriate attempt to discover the defendants' case and evidence rather than documents by reference to relevance to facts in issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Application for Further and Better Discovery
Outcome
Order for further and better discovery refused.
Legal Topics
['discovery and Inspection of Documents' 'further and Better Discovery' 'discovery by Categories' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'privilege']
['civil Procedure'] ['discovery and Inspection of Documents' 'further and Better Discovery' 'discovery by Categories' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'privilege']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Application for Further and Better Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether further categories of discovery should be ordered against the defendants under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 21.2.' 'Whether the proposed categories of discovery were relevant to facts in issue and sufficiently confined.' 'Whether discovery should be ordered for documents that appeared likely to be privileged.' "Whether documents relating to the defendants' knowledge and understanding of finance documents were relevant to the non est factum defence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed further discovery order was refused because the relevant documents in proposed category 8 were already within the existing order and there was no evidence of incomplete discovery; proposed category 16 appeared privileged and no explanation showed how discovery without inspection would advance the case; proposed categories 17 and 18 were too broad and would capture documents not relevant to facts in issue; and proposed category 19 was an inappropriate attempt to discover the defendants' case and evidence rather than documents by reference to relevance to facts in issue.

Court Disposition

Order for further and better discovery refused.

Orders

  • ['Further order for discovery as against the defendants refused at this stage.' 'Time for the plaintiff to file and serve its defence to the amended cross-claim extended to 11 December 2008.' 'Time for the plaintiff to give verified discovery of the documents in categories 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the document dated 10...