Commonwealth Bank v Iinvest [2017] NSWSC 429

Commonwealth Bank v Iinvest [2017] NSWSC 429

The adjournment was refused because the cross-claimants did not establish by cogent and direct evidence that the bank had withheld documents falling within the previously agreed informal discovery categories or that deficient production deprived them of evidence whose absence would make refusal of an adjournment plainly unjust. The Court accepted that the bank had complied with the agreed discovery categories, and a short adjournment would likely make the trial part heard and cause substantial delay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Production of Documents and Adjournment Application / Notice of Motion Filed on the First Day of the Hearing Seeking an Adjournment or Deferral
Outcome
Relief sought by the cross-claimants in the notice of motion filed in court was refused.
Legal Topics
['production of Documents' 'notice to Produce' 'informal Discovery' 'further Discovery' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure'] ['production of Documents' 'notice to Produce' 'informal Discovery' 'further Discovery' 'adjournment' 'overriding Purpose' 'case Management']

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 Procedure Production of Documents and Adjournment Application / Notice of Motion Filed on the First Day of the Hearing Seeking an Adjournment or Deferral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bank had complied with its obligations to produce documents under previously agreed informal discovery categories.' 'Whether the cross-claimants had shown deficiencies in production sufficient to justify an adjournment of the hearing.' 'Whether a notice to produce was being used impermissibly to obtain further discovery.' 'Whether refusing the adjournment would cause injustice to the cross-claimants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the cross-claimants did not establish by cogent and direct evidence that the bank had withheld documents falling within the previously agreed informal discovery categories or that deficient production deprived them of evidence whose absence would make refusal of an adjournment plainly unjust. The Court accepted that the bank had complied with the agreed discovery categories, and a short adjournment would likely make the trial part heard and cause substantial delay.

Court Disposition

Relief sought by the cross-claimants in the notice of motion filed in court was refused.

Orders

  • ['The relief sought by the cross-claimants in the notice of motion filed in court today is refused.']