Kerek v Amaca Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDDT 35

The employment records identified the period and areas of the applicant's work at the Camellia factory and would assist him in deciding whether to proceed by providing evidence relevant to the intensity of asbestos exposure; because those records were only produced on the return of the summons, the discovery order was unnecessary but the applicant was entitled to his costs.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 21 December 2007
Procedural Posture: Summons Seeking Preliminary Discovery of Employment Records / Return of Summons; Documents Produced and Costs Sought
Outcome: Documents were produced; no preliminary discovery order was made; applicant awarded costs.
Legal Topics: ['preliminary Discovery' 'employment Records' 'costs' 'asbestos Exposure and Lung Cancer']

['civil Procedure' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'employment Records' 'costs' 'asbestos Exposure and Lung Cancer']

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

Procedural Posture

Summons Seeking Preliminary Discovery of Employment Records / Return of Summons; Documents Produced and Costs Sought

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether employment records held by Amaca would assist the applicant to decide whether to commence proceedings within r 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to costs where the requested documents were produced at court and the discovery order became unnecessary.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Documents were produced; no preliminary discovery order was made; applicant awarded costs.

Orders

['The documents have been produced, so an order for production is unnecessary.' 'The applicant is entitled to his costs.']