30 Oct 2023
Taking into account the time records, the write-down from $18,036 to $15,000, and the legitimate need for non-party solicitors to 'get up to speed', the $15,000 fee was within a reasonable range and therefore payable by the Lomax parties to Mr Townsend.
26 Oct 2023
The judge dismissed the application for leave to cross-examine because the application could be dealt with on the papers and cross-examination was not necessary at this interim procedural stage; detailed reasons were reserved and to be issued with the substantive judgment on the discovery application.
13 Jun 2023
The Court ordered particular discovery in part: documents exchanged between PwC and Police for the 27 February 2017 mediation and/or negotiating or agreeing the Settlement Deed that set out or respond to either party's substantive claim must be disclosed because the reasonableness and quantum of PwC's settlement is squarely pleaded, disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice under s57(3)(d) and collateral waiver arose given the Settlement Deed incorporated and waived privilege in schedule A and annexures. The Court declined to require disclosure of Project Delay documents (including…
1 Jun 2023
The Court awarded costs to Spark on the specified category 3B and 3C bases and allowed a 50% uplift for Cayman's r 8.30(4) application because the applicants persisted in advancing an argument already found to lack merit when the discovered documents were properly viewed in context with Spark's prior communications; the collateral use application was declined and was an unnecessary step justifying increased costs.
5 Apr 2023
Applying the r 8.19 / r 8.18 framework and the McGechan four-step test the Court held categories 1, 2, 4 and 6 are relevant and sufficiently material and not disproportional to require discovery; category 3 is privileged and must be recorded in Part 2 of the affidavit; category 5 had already been provided. The Court ordered the Body Corporate to file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents by 2 May 2023 containing the specified categories (with an amended scope for category 2) and directed parties to confer on confidentiality procedures; costs preliminarily reserved for the plaintiff.
24 Mar 2023
Balancing the public interest in maintaining privilege against the competing public interest in transparency, the Court concluded that disclosure of the remaining documents over which privilege was claimed should be authorised under s57(2B) because partial disclosure had already occurred, the withheld documents raised no new independent issues, and transparency and open justice outweighed the reasons for continued non-disclosure; the Court therefore granted access to the court file including the privileged communications and directed practical steps for access to the recording and transcripti…
14 Dec 2022
Leave to bring a leapfrog appeal is refused because the required exceptional circumstances and necessity in the interests of justice are not established: the additional evidence is not fresh or compelling and raises no distinct question of law; the fraud and lien allegations lack foundation or are extraneous; interlocutory discovery issues are beyond this Court's jurisdiction or lack sufficient prospects of success; and claimed privilege was rightly rejected below.
9 Dec 2022
The court held that s 66(3) requires the personal representative to demonstrate a justifiable interest in maintaining privilege after death and that the meaning of 'legitimate interest' in s 66(4) is sufficiently unclear to warrant appellate consideration; leave to appeal was granted in respect of s 66(3) and s 66(4) together, but leave to appeal the application of Lambie was refused.
18 Oct 2022
The Court granted targeted discovery limited to documents genuinely relevant to the pleaded issues and proportional to the litigation. It ordered discovery of all documents concerning the $100,000 advance to Andrew (2007) including accounting treatment and communications, required disclosure of trustees' advice and communications about calling up the $100,000 debt (when litigation was not yet inevitable), and limited any disclosure of privileged material under the joint interest exception to documents created before the joint interest ended (concluded to subsist until late 2020/around 10 Dece…
27 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because no question of law capable of bona fide, serious argument was established; the letter repeating only the offeror's terms was admissible on the issue of costs as a Calderbank offer or, alternatively, admissible under the Employment Court's equity and good conscience jurisdiction; an objection premised on 'jointly owned privilege' failed where the letter did not disclose the opponent's without prejudice statements.