Donald Carl Braden v Burdekin Pacific Limited and Another [2005] NSWIRComm 186

Donald Carl Braden v Burdekin Pacific Limited and Another [2005] NSWIRComm 186

The respondent refused to produce the documents until shortly before the hearing and asserted irrelevance without reasons. The affidavit material showed the documents appeared reasonably clearly to be relevant to facts in issue, or which may be in issue, including issues identified in the Statement of Issues filed on 30 July 2004. The applicant had identified facts in issue, so the Court exercised its discretion under s181(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to award the applicant the costs sought in Order 3 of the Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Costs in Relation to the Production of Documents Sought by Way of a Notice to Produce / Extempore Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant as sought in Order 3 of the Notice of Motion filed on 6 May 2005.
Legal Topics
['notice to Produce' 'production of Documents' 'relevance of Documents' 'costs Under S181(1) Industrial Relations Act 1996']
['industrial Relations' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['notice to Produce' 'production of Documents' 'relevance of Documents' 'costs Under S181(1) Industrial Relations Act 1996']

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 Seeking Costs in Relation to the Production of Documents Sought by Way of a Notice to Produce / Extempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the documents sought by the Notice to Produce were relevant to facts in issue or which may be in issue in the proceedings.' 'Whether the applicant identified a fact in issue as required under Rule 161(1)(b).' 'Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant in relation to the Notice of Motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent refused to produce the documents until shortly before the hearing and asserted irrelevance without reasons. The affidavit material showed the documents appeared reasonably clearly to be relevant to facts in issue, or which may be in issue, including issues identified in the Statement of Issues filed on 30 July 2004. The applicant had identified facts in issue, so the Court exercised its discretion under s181(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to award the applicant the costs sought in Order 3 of the Motion.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant as sought in Order 3 of the Notice of Motion filed on 6 May 2005.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent pay the applicant costs of and incidental to the notice of motion forthwith.']