Hammond v Thompson [2013] NSWSC 987

Hammond v Thompson [2013] NSWSC 987

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in Magistrate Corry's refusal to set aside the subpoena or Notices to Produce or to strike out paragraph 10 of the Defence. The documents sought had clear relevance to Mr Thompson's defences concerning apportionment of liability and any recovery by Ms Hammond from Maloufs, the subpoena and Notices to Produce were not shown to be discovery, further discovery, or a fishing expedition, and the technical complaint about leave or timing had no merit in light of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the circumstances of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Decision of the Local Court / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'notices to Produce' 'abuse of Process' 'discovery' 'fishing Expedition' 'relevance' 'proportionate Liability' 'pleadings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'tort'] ['subpoenas' 'notices to Produce' 'abuse of Process' 'discovery' 'fishing Expedition' 'relevance' 'proportionate Liability' 'pleadings' 'costs']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Decision of the Local Court / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Magistrate Corry's interlocutory decision dismissing Ms Hammond's Notices of Motion." 'Whether the subpoena to Gerard Malouf & Partners and the Notices to Produce should have been set aside as an abuse of process, as discovery, as a fishing expedition, or for want of relevance.' 'Whether the Notices to Produce required leave because no hearing date had been fixed.' "Whether paragraph 10 of Mr Thompson's Defence should have been struck out."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in Magistrate Corry's refusal to set aside the subpoena or Notices to Produce or to strike out paragraph 10 of the Defence. The documents sought had clear relevance to Mr Thompson's defences concerning apportionment of liability and any recovery by Ms Hammond from Maloufs, the subpoena and Notices to Produce were not shown to be discovery, further discovery, or a fishing expedition, and the technical complaint about leave or timing had no merit in light of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the circumstances of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' "The plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs."]