Lee v Belmore 88 Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 96

Lee v Belmore 88 Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 96

General discovery should be ordered instead of category discovery in these related proceedings as it better serves the overriding purpose under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), given the defined issues, substantial information asymmetry, the real prospect of protracted and wasteful argument over categories, absence of persuasive evidence that general discovery will be more onerous or costly, and the aims of proportionality and efficiency in civil litigation.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Derek Kuo Hsiung Lee; Second Plaintiff: MNK Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: P3 Australasian Properties Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Belmore 88 Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Dennis Raymond Bluth; Third Defendant: The Martinez HWL Practice Trust & The East HWL Practice Trust & The Warat HWL Practice Trust & The Marin HWL Practice Trust; Fourth Defendant: Troy Douglas; Sixth Defendant: Wetbar Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Discovery Application (equity Division Civil, Interlocutory) / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
General discovery ordered
Legal Topics
Discovery, General Discovery, Category Discovery, Practice Note SC Eq 11, Overriding Purpose (civil Procedure Act 2005)
Civil Procedure Equity Discovery General Discovery Category Discovery Practice Note SC Eq 11 Overriding Purpose (civil Procedure Act 2005)

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Kuo Hsiung Lee

First Plaintiff

MNK Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

P3 Australasian Properties Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Belmore 88 Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Dennis Raymond Bluth

Second Defendant

The Martinez HWL Practice Trust & The East HWL Practice Trust & The Warat HWL Practice Trust & The Marin HWL Practice Trust

Third Defendant

Troy Douglas

Fourth Defendant

Wetbar Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Discovery Application (equity Division Civil, Interlocutory) / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order general discovery or category discovery in the proceedings
  2. 2 Application of Practice Note SC Eq 11 and Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56 (overriding purpose) to the form of discovery to be granted

Ratio Decidendi

General discovery should be ordered instead of category discovery in these related proceedings as it better serves the overriding purpose under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), given the defined issues, substantial information asymmetry, the real prospect of protracted and wasteful argument over categories, absence of persuasive evidence that general discovery will be more onerous or costly, and the aims of proportionality and efficiency in civil litigation.

Court Disposition

General discovery ordered

Orders

  • General discovery in the sense of disclosure of documents relevant to a fact in issue as defined in UCPR Pt 21 r 21.1 is ordered. Further directions to be settled with the parties.