Carbotech-Australia Pty Ltd v Yates [2008] NSWSC 1149

Carbotech-Australia Pty Ltd v Yates [2008] NSWSC 1149

Documents up to 30 June 2005 were plainly relevant because they concerned prices offered at and about the time of the relevant dealings in early 2005, but documents after 30 June 2005 were increasingly remote and their probative value would require market comparison evidence that had not been served or foreshadowed. Given the week two trial stage and the availability of more expeditious alternatives, there was insufficient legitimate forensic purpose to require production of documents sent after 30 June 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Notice to Produce for Inspection / Week Two of an Eight Week Trial; Oral Application by the Plaintiffs Under UCPR R 21.11 for an Otherwise Order or to Set Aside the Notice
Outcome
Plaintiffs need not produce documents responsive to the notice that were sent after 30 June 2005.
Legal Topics
['notice to Produce' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'production of Documents' 'equitable Compensation' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['notice to Produce' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'production of Documents' 'equitable Compensation' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings']

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

Procedural Ruling on Notice to Produce for Inspection / Week Two of an Eight Week Trial; Oral Application by the Plaintiffs Under UCPR R 21.11 for an Otherwise Order or to Set Aside the Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the SES defendants' notice to produce served a legitimate forensic purpose." 'Whether the plaintiffs should be required to produce documents sent after 30 June 2005 setting out prices or proposed prices for secondary support service.' 'Whether the stage of the proceedings and available alternatives affected the scope of production required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Documents up to 30 June 2005 were plainly relevant because they concerned prices offered at and about the time of the relevant dealings in early 2005, but documents after 30 June 2005 were increasingly remote and their probative value would require market comparison evidence that had not been served or foreshadowed. Given the week two trial stage and the availability of more expeditious alternatives, there was insufficient legitimate forensic purpose to require production of documents sent after 30 June 2005.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs need not produce documents responsive to the notice that were sent after 30 June 2005.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to UCPR r 21.11, the plaintiffs need not produce, pursuant to the notice of 25 September 2008, being VD18, such documents described in the notice as were sent by them after 30 June 2005.']