Lovric v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 157

Lovric v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 157

The amended notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Lovric did not establish the factual matters said to justify relief: the Court was not satisfied that there was any material failure to produce documents answering the subpoenas, there was no evidence of misconduct or suppression of evidence by the State's solicitors, and the discretionary factors under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.16(3A), including finality of litigation and the absence of any issue taken at trial about non-production, were against setting aside the judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Set Aside Judgment / Amended Notice of Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 36.16(3 A), After Dismissal of Plaintiff's Proceedings
Outcome
Amended notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Judgment' 'subpoenas' 'alleged Suppression of Evidence' 'discretion' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'judgments and Orders'] ['setting Aside Judgment' 'subpoenas' 'alleged Suppression of Evidence' 'discretion' 'finality of Litigation' '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

Civil Application to Set Aside Judgment / Amended Notice of Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 36.16(3 A), After Dismissal of Plaintiff's Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the State failed to produce in answer to subpoenas the CAD log, the VKG audio file or transcript, the Denis Lovric POI summary, or the notebook of Constable Ellzmeter.' 'Whether any failure to produce documents constituted suppression of relevant evidence by the solicitors for the State.' 'Whether any failure or suppression warranted the Court exercising its discretion under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.16(3A), to set aside the judgment.' 'What orders, including costs, should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Lovric did not establish the factual matters said to justify relief: the Court was not satisfied that there was any material failure to produce documents answering the subpoenas, there was no evidence of misconduct or suppression of evidence by the State's solicitors, and the discretionary factors under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.16(3A), including finality of litigation and the absence of any issue taken at trial about non-production, were against setting aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Amended notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Amended notice of motion filed 22 June 2018 dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs."]