Weber V Wollongong Coal & Ors [2022] NSWDDT 3

Weber V Wollongong Coal & Ors [2022] NSWDDT 3

Given that all issues except diagnosis were in contention, and the defendants made no relevant admissions, discovery within the specified classes of documents was necessary for the fair disposition of the case, was not oppressive in the context of the litigation, and was clearly relevant to central facts in dispute. Orders for verified discovery against the first, third, and fourth defendants for documents tailored to relevant categories and periods were justified and appropriate.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mark David Weber; First Defendant: Wollongong Coal Limited; Second Defendant: WDS (Mining) Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: CAS Mine Services Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Coal Mines Insurance Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling – Discovery Motion in Personal Injury Claim / Pre Trial; Ruling on Motion for Discovery and Costs
Outcome
Orders for verified discovery granted against first, third, and fourth defendants. Costs of the motion to the plaintiff. Further directions listed.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Oppression (procedural), Dust Diseases, Scope of Discovery, Relevance of Documents, Provisional Damages, Employers' Liability
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Discovery Oppression (procedural) Dust Diseases Scope of Discovery Relevance of Documents +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark David Weber

Plaintiff

Wollongong Coal Limited

First Defendant

WDS (Mining) Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

CAS Mine Services Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Coal Mines Insurance Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling – Discovery Motion in Personal Injury Claim / Pre Trial; Ruling on Motion for Discovery and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discovery should be ordered under Part 21 UCPR and Rule 4 of DDT Rules 2019 for certain classes of documents relevant to the plaintiff’s dust disease claim
  2. 2 Whether the discovery sought was oppressive, too broad, fishing or a chain of enquiry
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are relevant and necessary for fair disposition of the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Given that all issues except diagnosis were in contention, and the defendants made no relevant admissions, discovery within the specified classes of documents was necessary for the fair disposition of the case, was not oppressive in the context of the litigation, and was clearly relevant to central facts in dispute. Orders for verified discovery against the first, third, and fourth defendants for documents tailored to relevant categories and periods were justified and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Orders for verified discovery granted against first, third, and fourth defendants. Costs of the motion to the plaintiff. Further directions listed.

Orders

  • First defendant to provide verified discovery of classes of documents as in Annexure A to Notice of Motion filed 6 July 2022, limited to 28 February 1996 to 28 February 2019, within 28 days.
  • Third defendant to provide verified discovery as in Annexure C within 28 days.