Rose v Amaca Pty Limited (ACN 000 035 512) (under NSW administered winding up) [2019] NSWDDT 10

Rose v Amaca Pty Limited (ACN 000 035 512) (under NSW administered winding up) [2019] NSWDDT 10

The disputed discovery categories were relevant to facts in issue arising from the pleadings, including the State's knowledge of the risk from crocidolite dust, the existence and scope of any duty of care, alleged breach, available precautions or remediation, and the pleaded defences of voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The proper end date was 31 December 1998 because it was most relevant to the plaintiff's residence at Wittenoom, some categories had been agreed to that date, and the State had not shown discovery to that date was inappropriate or oppressive. Discovery concerning location was limited to the Township of Wittenoom and Wittenoom and Colonial Gorges....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Personal Injury Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Verified Discovery From the Sixth Defendant
Outcome
The Tribunal confirmed earlier orders for agreed categories and directed that short minutes be brought in for verified discovery of the disputed categories as determined, with costs to be heard later.
Legal Topics
['discovery in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'scope and Period of Discovery' 'duty of Care and Salient Features' 'exposure to Crocidolite Asbestos Dust at Wittenoom']
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure' 'discovery' 'negligence'] ['discovery in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings' 'relevance to Facts in Issue' 'scope and Period of Discovery' 'duty of Care and Salient Features' 'exposure to Crocidolite Asbestos Dust at Wittenoom']

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

Dust Diseases Personal Injury Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Verified Discovery From the Sixth Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sixth Defendant should be required to provide verified discovery of disputed categories of documents.' 'Whether the proper end date for discovery was 31 December 1988 or 31 December 1998.' 'Whether discovery should extend to documents concerning the Township of Wittenoom and surrounding areas.' 'How the State of Western Australia should be defined for discovery purposes.' 'Whether the disputed categories were relevant to facts in issue and whether the discovery sought was oppressive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed discovery categories were relevant to facts in issue arising from the pleadings, including the State's knowledge of the risk from crocidolite dust, the existence and scope of any duty of care, alleged breach, available precautions or remediation, and the pleaded defences of voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The proper end date was 31 December 1998 because it was most relevant to the plaintiff's residence at Wittenoom, some categories had been agreed to that date, and the State had not shown discovery to that date was inappropriate or oppressive. Discovery concerning location was limited to the Township of Wittenoom and Wittenoom and Colonial Gorges....

Court Disposition

The Tribunal confirmed earlier orders for agreed categories and directed that short minutes be brought in for verified discovery of the disputed categories as determined, with costs to be heard later.

Orders

  • ['I confirm my Orders of 29 October 2019 relating to the agreed categories.' 'I direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order in accordance with these reasons that the Sixth Defendant provide verified discovery of the disputed categories (as determined by these Reasons) on or before 5pm on 26 November 2019,...