Koscardi, Karoly v Elegant Tiles Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 251

Koscardi, Karoly v Elegant Tiles Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 251

Late and overly broad discovery requests, particularly those lacking a satisfactory explanation for their timing and scope, will generally be refused, and the party responding reasonably will not be penalised in costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Further and Better Discovery / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application for further and better discovery refused; costs orders as stated
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['discovery' 'costs']

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

Application for Further and Better Discovery / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether further and better discovery should be ordered in relation to documentation allegedly in possession of the applicant's legal advisers" 'Whether costs should be awarded in relation to the application']

Ratio Decidendi

Late and overly broad discovery requests, particularly those lacking a satisfactory explanation for their timing and scope, will generally be refused, and the party responding reasonably will not be penalised in costs.

Court Disposition

Application for further and better discovery refused; costs orders as stated

Orders

  • ['No order for further discover be made on the notice of motion.' 'There be no order as to costs in favour of the third respondent.' "The applicant's costs of and incidental to today be the applicant's costs in the proceedings."]