Wiltshire v Direct Home Loan Corporation Pty Limited and Others [2003] NSWIRComm 463

Wiltshire v Direct Home Loan Corporation Pty Limited and Others [2003] NSWIRComm 463

The summonses for production of documents should not be set aside because the documents sought are relevant to the live issues between the parties, are in the exclusive possession of the respondents, and it cannot be concluded that their production is merely speculative or a fishing exercise. The applicant is entitled to pursue the documentary evidence as part of proving the alleged personal benefit received by the respondents from the unfair conduct.

Parties
Applicant: John Wiltshire; First Respondent: Direct Home Loan Corporation Pty Limited (ACN 073 143 469); Second Respondent: Brian Coppin; Third Respondent: Mark Hosking
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Unfair Contract Application / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Summons for Production
Outcome
Respondents' motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Summons for Production, Discovery, Procedural Fairness
Industrial Law Unfair Contract Summons for Production Discovery Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Wiltshire

Applicant

Direct Home Loan Corporation Pty Limited (ACN 073 143 469)

First Respondent

Brian Coppin

Second Respondent

Mark Hosking

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Contract Application / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Summons for Production

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summonses for production of documents should be set aside as a 'fishing exercise'
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses for production of documents should not be set aside because the documents sought are relevant to the live issues between the parties, are in the exclusive possession of the respondents, and it cannot be concluded that their production is merely speculative or a fishing exercise. The applicant is entitled to pursue the documentary evidence as part of proving the alleged personal benefit received by the respondents from the unfair conduct.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' motion to set aside summonses for production is dismissed
  • Respondents to bear the applicant's costs of the motion, as agreed, or assessed