Ng v Velik [2009] NSWSC 1256

Ng v Velik [2009] NSWSC 1256

Because the defendant's files were likely to be central to a controversial and significant dispute about whether the defendant acted with the plaintiff's instructions, there should as far as possible be no doubt about their provenance or contents. The need for early clarification and verification, and efficient trial management of a large number of documents, made it neither inappropriate nor unreasonable to require discovery in accordance with the rules in the ordinary way despite the prior delivery of the files.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Discovery in Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Proceedings Against Former Solicitor / Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Orders to Limit or Qualify Discovery Obligations
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['scope of Discovery Obligations' 'particular Identification of Discovered Documents' "solicitor's Files Already Provided Before Proceedings" 'costs and Inconvenience of Discovery' 'admissions Arising From Discovered Documents']
['civil Procedure' 'discovery' 'professional Negligence' 'fiduciary Duties'] ['scope of Discovery Obligations' 'particular Identification of Discovered Documents' "solicitor's Files Already Provided Before Proceedings" 'costs and Inconvenience of Discovery' 'admissions Arising From Discovered Documents']

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

Procedural Ruling on Discovery in Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Proceedings Against Former Solicitor / Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Orders to Limit or Qualify Discovery Obligations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should be relieved from or have limited his obligation to give discovery of documents already provided to the plaintiff's solicitors before the proceedings commenced." "Whether the cost and inconvenience to the defendant outweighed the plaintiff's insistence on discovery in accordance with UCPR Part 21, including particular identification of each document."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant's files were likely to be central to a controversial and significant dispute about whether the defendant acted with the plaintiff's instructions, there should as far as possible be no doubt about their provenance or contents. The need for early clarification and verification, and efficient trial management of a large number of documents, made it neither inappropriate nor unreasonable to require discovery in accordance with the rules in the ordinary way despite the prior delivery of the files.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application." 'The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to reflect the decision.']