Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges [2023] NSWDC 125

Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges [2023] NSWDC 125

Discovery should be ordered only in terms relevant, necessary, and appropriately limited to the issues identified in the pleadings, avoiding categories based purely on credit, collateral issues, or excessively broad scope. Some categories were recast by the Court to focus discovery on communications evidencing purpose or motive, rather than all references or records. Requests relating solely to credit or peripheral matters were refused per procedural rules.

Parties
Plaintiff: Farah Georges; Defendant: George Georges; Defendant: Bassam Georges
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Discovery Dispute
Outcome
Discovery granted in part, requests recast or refused as ordered
Legal Topics
Discovery, Aggravated Damages, Credit, Collateral Purpose
Civil Procedure Defamation Discovery Aggravated Damages Credit Collateral Purpose

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farah Georges

Plaintiff

George Georges

Defendant

Bassam Georges

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Discovery Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether categories for discovery sought in defamation proceedings are relevant, necessary or proportional to the issues raised in the pleadings
  2. 2 Whether discovery for certain categories should be recast or refused according to procedural rules

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery should be ordered only in terms relevant, necessary, and appropriately limited to the issues identified in the pleadings, avoiding categories based purely on credit, collateral issues, or excessively broad scope. Some categories were recast by the Court to focus discovery on communications evidencing purpose or motive, rather than all references or records. Requests relating solely to credit or peripheral matters were refused per procedural rules.

Court Disposition

Discovery granted in part, requests recast or refused as ordered

Orders

  • Defendants to provide discovery in recast terms as indicated in judgment: communications between defendants tending to show purpose/motive in AVO application; communications between Bassam Georges and George Georges indicating state of mind as to connection between defamation publications and Supreme/Local Court...
  • Requests for discovery relating solely to credit or excessively broad categories refused.