ASIC v Rich [2006] NSWSC 980

ASIC v Rich [2006] NSWSC 980

The Court decided not to require the call to be answered because production would create a substantial risk of deferring the close of evidence for weeks, perhaps as long as six weeks, through expert review, possible further requests for programs and privilege disputes. The likely inquiry would move well beyond the circumstances in which Mr Maizels' evidence was adduced, and the possible probative value of any resulting evidence did not justify the delay, cost and broadening of the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / During Trial, on Asic's Call for Production of Documents From a Defendants' Witness
Outcome
Production not required
Legal Topics
['production of Documents' 'call for Production' 'case Management' 'client Legal Privilege' 'penalty Privilege' 'cross Examination']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['production of Documents' 'call for Production' 'case Management' 'client Legal Privilege' 'penalty Privilege' 'cross Examination']

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

Evidence Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / During Trial, on Asic's Call for Production of Documents From a Defendants' Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should require production by Mr Maizels of reports and documents described in ASIC's call for production." 'Whether discretionary case management considerations, including delay, cost, breadth of inquiry and limited probative value, justified declining to require production.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court decided not to require the call to be answered because production would create a substantial risk of deferring the close of evidence for weeks, perhaps as long as six weeks, through expert review, possible further requests for programs and privilege disputes. The likely inquiry would move well beyond the circumstances in which Mr Maizels' evidence was adduced, and the possible probative value of any resulting evidence did not justify the delay, cost and broadening of the trial.

Court Disposition

Production not required

Orders

  • ["The Court did not require production by Mr Maizels of any of the subject matter of ASIC's call made at T 14,182.47 to 14,183.6."]