28 Sept 2011
SPARKSMAN LIMITED V KRS (2003) LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2008-404-4432
- Citation
- openlaw-04c14a4e_34e5_4997_b09d_105af252eddb.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Although plaintiffs narrowly crossed the jurisdictional threshold that some relevant undisclosed electronic material might exist, the Court exercised its discretion to decline the r 9.34 inspection application because plaintiffs contributed to delay, the application was late relative to the imminent trial date such that further forensic work would likely derail the trial, the evidential foundation was speculative (no 'smoking gun'), and the prejudice to timely trial administration outweighed any limited prejudice to plaintiffs; defendants awarded costs.