Permanent Custodians Ltd v Nobilo [2011] NSWSC 1494

Permanent Custodians Ltd v Nobilo [2011] NSWSC 1494

The application for production of documents failed because the documents were not 'clearly identified' under rule 21.10(1)(b) UCPR, nor were they relevant to a fact in issue, and the registrar's decision was correct on these grounds. While privilege had been waived in respect of some conference notes, this did not alter the outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Review of Registrar's Decision on Notice of Motion for Production of Documents
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; Cross-Claimants' Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['notice to Produce' 'discovery' 'client Legal Privilege' "review of Registrar's Decision"]
['civil Procedure'] ['notice to Produce' 'discovery' 'client Legal Privilege' "review of Registrar's Decision"]

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

Interlocutory Application / Review of Registrar's Decision on Notice of Motion for Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether documents sought were 'clearly identified' under r 21.10(1)(b) UCPR" 'Whether documents were relevant to a fact in issue' 'Whether production could be ordered under s 68 Civil Procedure Act 2005' 'Whether client legal privilege was waived by reference to instructions in affidavit']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for production of documents failed because the documents were not 'clearly identified' under rule 21.10(1)(b) UCPR, nor were they relevant to a fact in issue, and the registrar's decision was correct on these grounds. While privilege had been waived in respect of some conference notes, this did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; Cross-Claimants' Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Cross-Claimants' Notice of Motion filed 14 October 2011 is dismissed." "The Cross-Claimants are to pay the Cross-Defendants' costs of the Motion."]