3 Nov 2022
Defendants were the substantive winners because the plaintiff's proposed discovery categories were in significant respects overly broad and disproportionate to the pleaded issues, the defendants' proposed categories were reasonable and largely adopted by consent; costs awarded to defendants on a 2B basis with specified 2A adjustments and a 20% uplift, yielding $5,736.
1 Apr 2022
QLDC conducted reasonable searches and demonstrated that the internal notes, memoranda or external reports about remedial works the plaintiffs alleged do not exist or have been produced or are publicly available; the 2015 tailored discovery order did not, on its terms, require QLDC to produce forward‑looking remedial documents and r8.19 was not engaged because there were no grounds to believe relevant undisclosed documents existed; accordingly no further discovery ordered.
20 Mar 2019
The Court refused EFL's broad requests for particular discovery because EFL failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe Canegallo possessed undisclosed documents showing a breach of the restraint; many challenged communications were plausibly explained as outside the restraint or sent in error and requests were disproportionate or fishing. The Court granted limited particular discovery against EFL (supplementary affidavit and production within 20 working days) confined to specified categories narrowly tailored to the pleadings (certain resignation letters, documents regarding replacemen…
4 Mar 2019
The amended statement of defence provided sufficient particulars about the alleged partnerships (their nature, parties and timeframe) to fairly inform the plaintiffs what case to meet; documents sought by the defendant were relevant to her pleaded constructive trust and partnership claims and discovery (with scope limits, redactions and undertakings) was proportionate and should be ordered, subject to affidavit verification and protective measures