Preston v Star City Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 293

Preston v Star City Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 293

The plaintiff failed to establish a proper basis for further discovery because the defendant's described methodology would capture the categories identified by the plaintiff, the alleged non-discovery rested largely on conflicts of affidavits and unsupported beliefs rather than admissions or sufficiently specific proof of further discoverable documents, and the FOI and McClellan report materials either had been addressed by the defendant or were excluded documents not shown to be relevant to facts in issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Discovery Motion in Tort Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion Seeking Further Discovery Filed 14 April 2005
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion seeking further discovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
['further Discovery' 'affidavit of Discovery' 'conflict of Affidavits' 'excluded Documents' 'freedom of Information Documents']
['civil Procedure' 'discovery'] ['further Discovery' 'affidavit of Discovery' 'conflict of Affidavits' 'excluded Documents' 'freedom of Information Documents']

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

Discovery Motion in Tort Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion Seeking Further Discovery Filed 14 April 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's methodology in preparing its list of documents was deficient so as to justify an order for further discovery." 'Whether alleged conflicts between affidavits established that further discoverable documents existed and had not been discovered.' 'Whether documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act 1989 applications or considered in the McClellan QC report required further discovery.' 'Whether excluded documents were relevant to a fact in issue or could rationally affect assessment of a fact in issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish a proper basis for further discovery because the defendant's described methodology would capture the categories identified by the plaintiff, the alleged non-discovery rested largely on conflicts of affidavits and unsupported beliefs rather than admissions or sufficiently specific proof of further discoverable documents, and the FOI and McClellan report materials either had been addressed by the defendant or were excluded documents not shown to be relevant to facts in issue.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion seeking further discovery dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's motion of 14 April 2005 seeking further discovery is dismissed." "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the motion."]