Ashton v Pratt [2010] NSWSC 1376

Ashton v Pratt [2010] NSWSC 1376

Discovery was ordered only to the extent that documents within the specified categories were relevant to facts in issue in the proceedings. Leave to further amend the defence was refused because the proposed reliance on summary dismissal, strike out and stay provisions was not appropriately pleaded as a substantive defence and, on the material then available, the proposed defences appeared barely arguable. Category 33 on the defendant's motion was therefore not ordered. The plaintiff's motion was largely allowed, subject to limits on overseas travel records and records relating to escort or similar services.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings Concerning Discovery and Pleadings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to give discovery to the defendant in specified categories, excluding category 33; leave to further amend the defence refused; defendant ordered to give discovery to the plaintiff in specified categories subject to limits; costs of each motion were costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['discovery of Documents' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'amendment of Defence' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'claims Against Estates']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['discovery of Documents' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'amendment of Defence' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'claims Against Estates']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings Concerning Discovery and Pleadings / Interlocutory Notices of Motion; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should give discovery of the defendant's requested categories of documents, including the appropriate time period and whether category 33 was relevant." 'Whether discovery categories should be limited to documents relevant to facts in issue in the proceedings.' 'Whether the defendant should be granted leave to further amend the defence to plead that the proceedings should be dismissed, struck out or stayed as an abuse of process because a fair trial was no longer possible.' "Whether the defendant should give discovery of the plaintiff's requested categories of documents, including limits on telephone records, employment records, travel records and escort service records."]

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery was ordered only to the extent that documents within the specified categories were relevant to facts in issue in the proceedings. Leave to further amend the defence was refused because the proposed reliance on summary dismissal, strike out and stay provisions was not appropriately pleaded as a substantive defence and, on the material then available, the proposed defences appeared barely arguable. Category 33 on the defendant's motion was therefore not ordered. The plaintiff's motion was largely allowed, subject to limits on overseas travel records and records relating to escort or similar services.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to give discovery to the defendant in specified categories, excluding category 33; leave to further amend the defence refused; defendant ordered to give discovery to the plaintiff in specified categories subject to limits; costs of each motion were costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff give discovery to the defendant of the documents specified in categories 1 to 21, 23 to 31, and 35 of schedule A to the defendant's motion filed on 18 August 2010, to the extent that such documents are relevant to facts in issue in the proceedings." 'Leave to further amend the defence refused.' "The...