In the matter of Teppanyakki Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 672

In the matter of Teppanyakki Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 672

The hearing date should be vacated as the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged proceeding without access to relevant documents, which have not been produced in breach of previous orders. An order is warranted under s 68 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) requiring the Second Defendant to produce those documents, but examination of the Second Defendant is premature until compliance or non-compliance is established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Orders; Hearing Date Vacated; Production of Documents Ordered
Outcome
Hearing date vacated; orders made for production of documents by Second Defendant; balance of relief stood over.
Legal Topics
['vacation of Hearing Date' 'production of Documents' 'examination of Party' 'non Compliance With Court Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['vacation of Hearing Date' 'production of Documents' 'examination of Party' 'non Compliance With Court Orders']

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

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Orders; Hearing Date Vacated; Production of Documents Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date should be vacated due to absence of evidence and non-production of relevant documents' 'Whether the Second Defendant should be ordered to produce relevant documents' 'Whether an examination of the Second Defendant should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing date should be vacated as the Plaintiff would be disadvantaged proceeding without access to relevant documents, which have not been produced in breach of previous orders. An order is warranted under s 68 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) requiring the Second Defendant to produce those documents, but examination of the Second Defendant is premature until compliance or non-compliance is established.

Court Disposition

Hearing date vacated; orders made for production of documents by Second Defendant; balance of relief stood over.

Orders

  • ['Hearing date of 8 June 2012 be vacated.' 'Second Defendant, on behalf of First Defendant, to produce specified financial documents to the Registry by 18 June 2012.' 'Defendants have liberty to apply on 48 hours notice.' 'Costs of 4 June 2012 reserved.' 'Leave to have orders entered forthwith.' "Plaintiff's...