Big Un Limited (in liquidation) v Evertz (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 878

Big Un Limited (in liquidation) v Evertz (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 878

Given the current criminal prosecution of Mr Corner and the significant factual and temporal overlap with the civil proceedings, requiring Mr Corner to comply with procedural steps in the civil proceedings would put him at real risk of self-incrimination. This brings the matter within the 'rare exception' described in the authorities, justifying in limine relief from the procedural requirements, with a mechanism for specific, tailored applications for disclosure if needed by other parties.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Big Un Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant/respondent: Brandon Charles Evertz; Third Defendant/respondent: Sonia Thurston; Fourth Defendant/applicant: Andrew Scott Corner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory Application to Be Relieved of Procedural Requirements Pending Overlapping Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted: Fourth defendant relieved of certain procedural requirements due to privilege against self-incrimination arising from overlapping criminal proceedings.
Legal Topics
Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Discovery and Disclosure, Procedural Dispensation, Overlap of Civil and Criminal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Equity Corporations Law Privilege Against Self Incrimination Discovery and Disclosure Procedural Dispensation Overlap of Civil and Criminal 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Big Un Limited (in liquidation)

Plaintiff/respondent

Brandon Charles Evertz

First Defendant/respondent

Sonia Thurston

Third Defendant/respondent

Andrew Scott Corner

Fourth Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory Application to Be Relieved of Procedural Requirements Pending Overlapping Criminal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth defendant should be relieved of procedural requirements to file a response, plead, provide particulars, serve evidence, and give disclosure in civil proceedings due to overlapping criminal proceedings and privilege against self-incrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the current criminal prosecution of Mr Corner and the significant factual and temporal overlap with the civil proceedings, requiring Mr Corner to comply with procedural steps in the civil proceedings would put him at real risk of self-incrimination. This brings the matter within the 'rare exception' described in the authorities, justifying in limine relief from the procedural requirements, with a mechanism for specific, tailored applications for disclosure if needed by other parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted: Fourth defendant relieved of certain procedural requirements due to privilege against self-incrimination arising from overlapping criminal proceedings.

Orders

  • The fourth defendant is relieved from the requirements to file and serve any commercial list response or other defence, plead matters specifically, provide particulars, serve any evidence (other than expert or non-personal evidence), and provide any disclosure except as to the books of the plaintiff or Big Review...
  • Fourth defendant granted liberty to apply for further relief pertaining to expert or lay evidence or trial issues.