Lieu & Anor v Deng & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 27

Lieu & Anor v Deng & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 27

Applying the principle in J L Holdings to the evidence, the Court held that although the matter had a tortured history and the respondents asserted prejudice from delay, the overall interests of justice warranted granting relief because relevant discovery and production issues remained and the applicants should be allowed to review the material and file further evidence. Costs were dealt with as a discrete application, with each party to bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Notice of Motion Seeking Vacation of Hearing Dates, Discovery, Leave to File Further Evidence, and Costs
Outcome
Orders sought on the notice of motion were granted in part with variations; each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'notice of Motion' 'discovery' 'summons for Production' 'adjournment or Vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Contract' 'notice of Motion' 'discovery' 'summons for Production' 'adjournment or Vacation of Hearing Dates' 'case Management' 'costs']

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

Application Pursuant to S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Notice of Motion Seeking Vacation of Hearing Dates, Discovery, Leave to File Further Evidence, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing dates of 6, 7, 8 and 9 February 2006 should be vacated.' 'Whether the respondents should be ordered to discover documents set out in Schedule A to the motion or provide affidavit evidence about documents no longer in their possession or control.' 'Whether the applicants should be permitted to file and serve further evidence after reviewing discovered documents.' 'Whether costs of the notice of motion should be awarded on an indemnity basis or otherwise.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the principle in J L Holdings to the evidence, the Court held that although the matter had a tortured history and the respondents asserted prejudice from delay, the overall interests of justice warranted granting relief because relevant discovery and production issues remained and the applicants should be allowed to review the material and file further evidence. Costs were dealt with as a discrete application, with each party to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Orders sought on the notice of motion were granted in part with variations; each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['The hearing dates of 6, 7, 8 and 9 February 2006 were vacated.' 'The respondents, within 7 days of the date of the orders, shall discover to the applicants all documents set out in Schedule A to the motion.' "If the respondents do not comply with the discovery order, the first respondent shall, within 14 days of...