Gorczynski v W & FT Osmo Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1107

Gorczynski v W & FT Osmo Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1107

The plaintiff failed to confine the orders sought for discovery and production to defined periods and specific categories of documents. Respondents had not been shown to possess or control the documents sought. The broadness of the request and lack of specification meant the criteria under UCPR 5.3 and 5.4 were not satisfied. Therefore, the Court declined to order preliminary discovery.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Francis Gorczynski; First Respondent: W & FT Osmo Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Michelle Sarah Hale; Third Respondent: Tammy Meyer; Fourth Respondent: Robert Ebner; Fifth Respondent: Vadim Topolinsky; Sixth Respondent: Bradd Morelli (as liquidator of TOP Consulting OSMO Group Pty Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion for Preliminary Discovery / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion for Preliminary Discovery
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for preliminary discovery dismissed.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Discovery of Documents, Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Preliminary Discovery Discovery of Documents Practice and Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Francis Gorczynski

Plaintiff

W & FT Osmo Pty Limited

First Respondent

Michelle Sarah Hale

Second Respondent

Tammy Meyer

Third Respondent

Robert Ebner

Fourth Respondent

Vadim Topolinsky

Fifth Respondent

Bradd Morelli (as liquidator of TOP Consulting OSMO Group Pty Ltd)

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion for Preliminary Discovery / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion for Preliminary Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should be required to provide preliminary discovery or production of documents pursuant to UCPR 5.3 and 5.4 or Corporations Act provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to confine the orders sought for discovery and production to defined periods and specific categories of documents. Respondents had not been shown to possess or control the documents sought. The broadness of the request and lack of specification meant the criteria under UCPR 5.3 and 5.4 were not satisfied. Therefore, the Court declined to order preliminary discovery.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for preliminary discovery dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's amended notice of motion dated 19 March 2018 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the respondents' costs on an ordinary basis.