27 Nov 2020
Leave to appeal was declined because pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20 properly applies to civil forfeiture proceedings, the Commissioner demonstrated it was impracticable to formulate the proposed forfeiture claim without the requested documents, the order was neither unreasonable nor an abuse of process, and the high threshold for interlocutory leave was not met.
10 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient significance to justify an intermediate appeal; the novelty alleged in the use of pre-commencement discovery did not, by itself, justify immediate appellate intervention and any substantive consequences can be addressed on appeal from the final decision, so refusing leave better serves finality and limits unnecessary delay and expense.
7 Jul 2015
The applicant could already formulate a sufficient relationship property claim under the PRA from documents and information in his possession; the documents sought were primarily evidential and not necessary to plead the claim, and the court would not order pre-commencement discovery against third parties (the parents/trustees) who were not properly joined or given notice under r 8.20, therefore the interlocutory application for pre-commencement discovery was dismissed.
8 Aug 2014
Application dismissed because applicant failed to produce primary/source evidence linking the expert's conclusions to the underlying documents or interviews, so it did not appear to the Judge on the evidence that the applicant may be entitled to relief under r 8.20 despite other requirements being met.