Pritchard Associates Pty Ltd v Stevenson & Anor [1999] NSWSC 888

Pritchard Associates Pty Ltd v Stevenson & Anor [1999] NSWSC 888

The plaintiff's list of documents was inadequate and non-compliant with the requirements of Part 23 of the Rules; a further verified and properly itemised list must be served. The issues regarding discharge of a previous cost order were not determined and stood over. Costs of the present motion awarded to the first defendant.

Parties
Plaintiff: Pritchard Associates Pty Limited; First Defendant: David Stevenson; Second Defendant: Harvey Wong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Application (notice of Motion) / Interlocutory (discovery/expert Evidence Orders)
Outcome
Interlocutory application partly allowed; further verified list of documents to be served; costs awarded to first defendant; discharge of earlier costs order stood over.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Service of Expert Reports, Legal Capacity to Contract, Legal Profession Act Compliance
Civil Procedure Contract Discovery of Documents Service of Expert Reports Legal Capacity to Contract Legal Profession Act Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pritchard Associates Pty Limited

Plaintiff

David Stevenson

First Defendant

Harvey Wong

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application (notice of Motion) / Interlocutory (discovery/expert Evidence Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's discovery is adequate and compliant with court rules
  2. 2 Whether certain documents (such as a diary, timesheets, agreements, invoices) must be disclosed
  3. 3 Whether the work done constitutes 'legal work' under s 48E Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) thus affecting enforceability of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's list of documents was inadequate and non-compliant with the requirements of Part 23 of the Rules; a further verified and properly itemised list must be served. The issues regarding discharge of a previous cost order were not determined and stood over. Costs of the present motion awarded to the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application partly allowed; further verified list of documents to be served; costs awarded to first defendant; discharge of earlier costs order stood over.

Orders

  • Discharge of Master Malpass order (15) stood over to him for determination.
  • Plaintiff to serve further verified list of documents within 21 days.