Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 1335

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 1335

Further discovery was warranted because the proposed categories, as modified by the Court, were directed to scrutinising specific assertions in the amended defences and the defendants' evidence. The Court declined to impose a general limitation based on the earlier discovery order and declined a carve out for documents available from the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry because those limitations would add subjectivity, uncertainty and wasted cost. The Court nevertheless narrowed some categories by persons, time period, subject matter and dam concerned to avoid unnecessary burden while preserving the utility of discovery.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings Brought Pursuant to Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Discovery Under Rule 21.2(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), Filed 18 August 2016 and Amended in Court on 13 September 2016
Outcome
Plaintiff's discovery motion granted in part; otherwise dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'categories of Documents' 'flood Mitigation Operations' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)']
['civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['discovery' 'categories of Documents' 'flood Mitigation Operations' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)']

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

Representative Proceedings Brought Pursuant to Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Discovery Under Rule 21.2(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), Filed 18 August 2016 and Amended in Court on 13 September 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be ordered to give further discovery in specified categories of documents.' 'Whether any discovery order should be limited by the prior discovery order made by Garling J, including by reference to documents relating to control, operation and management of Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam during 1 December 2010 to 19 January 2011.' 'Whether documents tendered before, or available from, the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry should be carved out from further discovery.' "Whether the plaintiff's proposed categories should be narrowed by subject matter, time period, persons searched, or dam concerned."]

Ratio Decidendi

Further discovery was warranted because the proposed categories, as modified by the Court, were directed to scrutinising specific assertions in the amended defences and the defendants' evidence. The Court declined to impose a general limitation based on the earlier discovery order and declined a carve out for documents available from the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry because those limitations would add subjectivity, uncertainty and wasted cost. The Court nevertheless narrowed some categories by persons, time period, subject matter and dam concerned to avoid unnecessary burden while preserving the utility of discovery.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's discovery motion granted in part; otherwise dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Subject to orders 2, 3 and 4, pursuant to rule 21.2(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the defendants are to provide discovery to the plaintiff and each other of the categories of documents specified in order 1(a), 1(a1), 1(bi), 1(bii), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(g) and 1(h).' "Order 1 does not require...