Woolworths Ltd v The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor [2002] NSWLEC 234

Woolworths Ltd v The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor [2002] NSWLEC 234

In the absence of points of claim or affidavits in chief, the notice to produce was oppressive and an abuse of process as it was not possible for the respondent or the Court to determine the precise issues in dispute, and the Practice Direction requiring proper pleadings had not been complied with.

Parties
Applicant: Woolworths Ltd; First Respondent: The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Cariste Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Environmental and Development Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Notice to Produce
Outcome
Interlocutory application granted
Legal Topics
Notice to Produce, Abuse of Process, Oppressive Discovery, Strike Out Application
Practice and Procedure Planning and Environment Notice to Produce Abuse of Process Oppressive Discovery Strike Out Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths Ltd

Applicant

The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Cariste Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Environmental and Development Dispute / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice to produce was oppressive and an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether proper identification of issues in dispute occurred prior to notice to produce
  3. 3 Whether compliance with Pre-Hearing Practice Direction and procedure was met

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of points of claim or affidavits in chief, the notice to produce was oppressive and an abuse of process as it was not possible for the respondent or the Court to determine the precise issues in dispute, and the Practice Direction requiring proper pleadings had not been complied with.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application granted

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the notice to produce served upon the first respondent dated 25 October 2002 be struck out.
  • The applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent in relation to the notice of motion as agreed or as assessed.