Martin v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1834

Martin v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1834

The motion largely failed because the proceedings sought to be heard together raised complex and disparate issues, and attempting to hear them together would not accord with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for just, quick and cheap resolution. The Land and Environment Court appeal was part heard and not presently stayed, so transfer would cause unnecessary additional cost. The discovery sought was oppressive, insufficiently shown to be relevant to facts in issue, and disproportionate. The subpoena and file-transfer applications were premature because the issues and documents had not been sufficiently identified. Leave to amend under order 6 was granted because it...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Supreme Court Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Motion Filed on 7 October 2014
Outcome
Mr Martin's motion was dismissed except for leave granted in relation to order 6 and except that the applications in orders 4 and 5 were stood over, with leave to renew on reasonable notice.
Legal Topics
['concurrent Hearing' 'discovery' 'subpoenas' 'transfer of Files' 'leave to Amend Summons' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'evidence' 'mining and Resources'] ['concurrent Hearing' 'discovery' 'subpoenas' 'transfer of Files' 'leave to Amend Summons' '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

Notice of Motion in Supreme Court Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Motion Filed on 7 October 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons should be heard concurrently with the remitted Vexatious Proceedings Act litigation and part heard Land and Environment Court proceedings.' 'Whether part heard Land and Environment Court proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court.' 'Whether the State should be ordered to give discovery of the documents sought by Mr Martin.' 'Whether leave should be granted at present to issue subpoenas to give oral evidence and produce documents.' 'Whether Land and Environment Court files should be brought to the Supreme Court for the hearing.' 'Whether Mr Martin should have leave to amend his summons as sought in order 6 of the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion largely failed because the proceedings sought to be heard together raised complex and disparate issues, and attempting to hear them together would not accord with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for just, quick and cheap resolution. The Land and Environment Court appeal was part heard and not presently stayed, so transfer would cause unnecessary additional cost. The discovery sought was oppressive, insufficiently shown to be relevant to facts in issue, and disproportionate. The subpoena and file-transfer applications were premature because the issues and documents had not been sufficiently identified. Leave to amend under order 6 was granted because it...

Court Disposition

Mr Martin's motion was dismissed except for leave granted in relation to order 6 and except that the applications in orders 4 and 5 were stood over, with leave to renew on reasonable notice.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to Mr Martin to amend his summons to include the relief identified in order 6 of the motion.' 'The motion is dismissed other than the leave given in relation to order 6 and what is sought in orders 4 and 5, which is stood over.' 'Mr Martin has leave to renew the applications in orders 4 and 5 on...