Racing New South Wales v Racing Victoria Limited (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 838

Racing New South Wales v Racing Victoria Limited (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 838

Time for discovery compliance was set as four weeks from orders, not six, considering prior opportunity to prepare; the 'Other Person' definition was tightened for clarity by removing or amending contested inclusions; costs of compliance are costs in the cause if substantive proceedings are commenced within three months, otherwise payable by plaintiffs; RSA, despite limited argument, was treated as opposing and included in adverse costs order.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Racing New South Wales; Second Plaintiff: Russell Balding AO; First Defendant: Racing Victoria Limited; Second Defendant: Greg Nichols; Third Defendant: Greg Carpenter; Fourth Defendant: Brian Kruger; Fifth Defendant: Racing Queensland Board; Sixth Defendant: Racing SA Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Racing and Wagering Western Australia; Eighth Defendant: TasRacing Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Consequential Orders on Preliminary Discovery and Costs
Outcome
Preliminary discovery orders made. Orders concerning time for compliance, scope of discovery, and costs.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Costs Orders, Discovery Compliance, Category Definitions in Discovery
Civil Procedure Preliminary Discovery Costs Orders Discovery Compliance Category Definitions in Discovery

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Racing New South Wales

First Plaintiff

Russell Balding AO

Second Plaintiff

Racing Victoria Limited

First Defendant

Greg Nichols

Second Defendant

Greg Carpenter

Third Defendant

Brian Kruger

Fourth Defendant

Racing Queensland Board

Fifth Defendant

Racing SA Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Racing and Wagering Western Australia

Seventh Defendant

TasRacing Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Consequential Orders on Preliminary Discovery and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether six weeks or four weeks should be allowed for preliminary discovery compliance
  2. 2 Appropriate definition of 'Other Person' for discovery
  3. 3 Apportionment and principle governing costs of compliance with preliminary discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Time for discovery compliance was set as four weeks from orders, not six, considering prior opportunity to prepare; the 'Other Person' definition was tightened for clarity by removing or amending contested inclusions; costs of compliance are costs in the cause if substantive proceedings are commenced within three months, otherwise payable by plaintiffs; RSA, despite limited argument, was treated as opposing and included in adverse costs order.

Court Disposition

Preliminary discovery orders made. Orders concerning time for compliance, scope of discovery, and costs.

Orders

  • Within four weeks of the date of these orders, the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Defendants are to provide to the Plaintiffs verified discovery of documents responsive to Schedule A.
  • Within four weeks, the same Defendants are to produce discoverable, non-privileged documents to the Plaintiffs.