Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Limited (in liquidation) [No 2] [2013] NSWSC 1971

Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Limited (in liquidation) [No 2] [2013] NSWSC 1971

Because the third defendant had expressly objected to Mr Pickham's note and Annexures A and B being provided to chambers, the fifth plaintiff's solicitor should not have transmitted those materials to chambers; stating the objection in the covering email did not cure the breach. Given the continuing dispute about what properly answered the description of the experts' joint report, the appropriate course was to return the covering email and attachment in their entirety and have the email deleted from chambers inboxes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Notices of Motion for Security for Costs / Part Heard Procedural Ruling Concerning Material Emailed to Chambers
Outcome
Material returned to fifth plaintiff.
Legal Topics
["email Communications With Judge's Chambers" 'consent of Active Parties' 'security for Costs Motions' 'transmission of Expert Material to Chambers']
['practice and Procedure'] ["email Communications With Judge's Chambers" 'consent of Active Parties' 'security for Costs Motions' 'transmission of Expert Material to Chambers']

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

Notices of Motion for Security for Costs / Part Heard Procedural Ruling Concerning Material Emailed to Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the fifth plaintiff's solicitor should have sent material to the judge's chambers when the third defendant objected to part of that material being sent." "Whether disclosure in the covering email of the third defendant's objection cured the impropriety." 'How the Court should deal with material sent to chambers without the consent of all active parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the third defendant had expressly objected to Mr Pickham's note and Annexures A and B being provided to chambers, the fifth plaintiff's solicitor should not have transmitted those materials to chambers; stating the objection in the covering email did not cure the breach. Given the continuing dispute about what properly answered the description of the experts' joint report, the appropriate course was to return the covering email and attachment in their entirety and have the email deleted from chambers inboxes.

Court Disposition

Material returned to fifth plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['The judge returned the print out of the covering email and the attachment in its entirety.' 'The judge instructed staff to delete the relevant email from their inboxes.']