Silver v Dome Resources NL [2004] NSWSC 226

Given evidence that directors signed contracts on behalf of the companies without board authorisation and that relevant documents are exclusively within defendants’ knowledge, the application for discovery is not a fishing expedition and discovery of contracts signed by the relevant signatories is ordered, with proper limitation as to formality but not subject matter.

Parties: Plaintiff: Michael Bernard Silver; Plaintiff: Fair Choice Limited; Defendant: Dome Resources NL; Defendant: Durban Roodepoort Deep Limited
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 25 March 2004
Procedural Posture: Equity Proceedings / Application for Discovery Order
Outcome: Discovery ordered
Legal Topics: Discovery, Implied Authority, Company Law

Civil Procedure Equity Discovery Implied Authority Company Law

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Michael Bernard Silver

Plaintiff

Fair Choice Limited

Plaintiff

Dome Resources NL

Defendant

Durban Roodepoort Deep Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Application for Discovery Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether discovery of contracts signed by certain directors on behalf of the defendant companies should be ordered
2 Whether such discovery amounts to a 'fishing expedition'
3 Whether the scope of discovery should be limited by subject matter or formality of contracts

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Discovery ordered

Orders

Order for defendants to provide discovery of contracts and agreements signed on behalf of the companies by the signatories of the Retirement Deed and Retirement Variation Deed, limited to contracts embodied in single signed documents and not contracts formed in correspondence or informally.
Order for discovery of minutes of directors of the companies.