Taylor v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2010] NSWLEC 158

Taylor v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2010] NSWLEC 158

The first notice to produce was strictly bad in form because it purported to require production of documents or things but sought information about costs and disbursements; however, the dispute had turned full circle, the applicants had treated it as relating to documents, and the matter was resolved by consent, so the costs of that motion were ordered to be the applicants' costs in the cause. The amended 27 July 2010 notice sought documents relevant to the reasonableness of the time allowed for the respondent's offer of compromise and to the Court's costs discretion under r 42.15(2); any client legal privilege over the communications appeared to have been waived by Mr Russo's affidavit,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Notices of Motion in Land Acquisition Compensation Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Applicants' Notices of Motion to Set Aside Notices to Produce; Final Orders and Costs in the Substantive Compensation Proceedings Reserved
Outcome
The first notice to produce dispute was resolved by consent with costs in the cause; the applicants were ordered to produce documents responsive to the amended 27 July 2010 notice, with costs of that motion also to be the applicants' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['notices to Produce' 'offers of Compromise' 'client Legal Privilege and Waiver' 'costs in the Cause' 'production of Documents']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'land Acquisition Compensation' 'evidence'] ['notices to Produce' 'offers of Compromise' 'client Legal Privilege and Waiver' 'costs in the Cause' 'production of 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

Practice and Procedure Notices of Motion in Land Acquisition Compensation Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Applicants' Notices of Motion to Set Aside Notices to Produce; Final Orders and Costs in the Substantive Compensation Proceedings Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice to produce dated 13 July 2010 should be set aside and what costs order should be made after the dispute was resolved by consent.' 'Whether the amended notice to produce dated 27 July 2010 had a legitimate forensic purpose.' "Whether client legal privilege over communications about the respondent's offer of compromise had been waived by the applicants' solicitor's affidavit." 'Whether travel documents relating to counsel, solicitor and valuer travel were relevant.' "What costs order should be made on the applicants' notices of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first notice to produce was strictly bad in form because it purported to require production of documents or things but sought information about costs and disbursements; however, the dispute had turned full circle, the applicants had treated it as relating to documents, and the matter was resolved by consent, so the costs of that motion were ordered to be the applicants' costs in the cause. The amended 27 July 2010 notice sought documents relevant to the reasonableness of the time allowed for the respondent's offer of compromise and to the Court's costs discretion under r 42.15(2); any client legal privilege over the communications appeared to have been waived by Mr Russo's affidavit,...

Court Disposition

The first notice to produce dispute was resolved by consent with costs in the cause; the applicants were ordered to produce documents responsive to the amended 27 July 2010 notice, with costs of that motion also to be the applicants' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['By noon on Thursday 29 July 2010 the applicants provide the respondent with a statement of the total costs and disbursements for the periods 1 April 2005 to 23 May 2007, 30 August 2005 to 16 February 2010, 27 May 2007 to 16 February 2010, and 17 February 2010 to 1 July 2010.' 'The respondent may use that...