Leighton International v Hodges; Thiess v Reinforced Earth [2012] NSWSC 458

Leighton International v Hodges; Thiess v Reinforced Earth [2012] NSWSC 458

In Leighton v Hodges, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the court that exceptional circumstances necessitated disclosure before evidence, nor did they establish that disclosure was reasonably necessary for fair disposal of the matter or for a fair trial; thus, the application was dismissed. In Thiess v Reinforced Earth, as existing discovery orders had substantially worked out, the Practice Note did not displace them, and it was appropriate to continue the regime and order completion of discovery as originally ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Applications for Orders Regarding Disclosure/discovery / Interlocutory Hearing on Applications for Disclosure Before Service of Evidence
Outcome
Leighton v Hodges: application dismissed; Thiess v Reinforced Earth: parties to complete discovery under existing orders.
Legal Topics
['disclosure' 'discovery' 'practice Note SC Eq 11' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'necessity' 'pre Trial Procedure']
['civil Procedure'] ['disclosure' 'discovery' 'practice Note SC Eq 11' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'necessity' 'pre Trial Procedure']

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

Applications for Orders Regarding Disclosure/discovery / Interlocutory Hearing on Applications for Disclosure Before Service of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether disclosure should be ordered before the service of evidence under Practice Note SC Eq 11' 'Whether existing discovery orders are displaced or varied by the Practice Note' "Meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' and 'necessary' under the Practice Note" 'Application of necessity threshold for disclosure']

Ratio Decidendi

In Leighton v Hodges, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the court that exceptional circumstances necessitated disclosure before evidence, nor did they establish that disclosure was reasonably necessary for fair disposal of the matter or for a fair trial; thus, the application was dismissed. In Thiess v Reinforced Earth, as existing discovery orders had substantially worked out, the Practice Note did not displace them, and it was appropriate to continue the regime and order completion of discovery as originally ordered.

Court Disposition

Leighton v Hodges: application dismissed; Thiess v Reinforced Earth: parties to complete discovery under existing orders.

Orders

  • ["Leighton v Hodges: Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; costs of the notice of motion to be the defendant's costs in the proceedings. Matter listed for directions on 18 May 2012." 'Thiess v Reinforced Earth: Costs of the notice of motion be costs in the proceedings; matter stood over to 11 May 2012 for...