AB v Rathjen - [2025] TASSC 30

[2025] TASSC 30

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	AB v Rathjen [2025] TASSC 30
PARTIES:	AB
v
RATHJEN, Peter David
UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	1977/2023
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:	26 September 2024, 15, 21 October 2024, 4 November 2024 (written submissions)
JUDGMENT OF:	Daly AsJ
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Discovery and interrogatories – Discovery and inspection of documents – Discovery of documents – Discretion of court and power to order - Application for discovery under r 386(2) limited to matter in question in a proceeding – Categories of documents not relevant to matters in question in the proceeding – Application dismissed.

Aust Dig Procedure [1229]

Procedure – State and Territory courts: Jurisdiction, powers and generally – Inherent and general statutory powers – Control of court procedure – Supreme Court's inherent powers relevant to these proceedings do not include the power to compel the plaintiff to serve the first defendant – Application dismissed.

Aust Dig Procedure [1015]

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Pleadings – Particulars – Further and better – Application for further and better particulars under r 253 – Particulars which were requested do not relate to the pleadings – Application dismissed.

Aust Dig Procedure [1188]

Legislation:
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) r 253
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) r 386
Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas) s 201

Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5A

Cases:
Rhodes v O'Neill (2017) 28 Tas R 379
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Mercer (2016) 29 Tas R 121
Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38
Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: A Mills
Second Defendant: B Byrnes

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Dobson Mitchell Allport
Second Defendant: Gilchrist Connell

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 30
Number of paragraphs:	66

Serial No 30/2025 File No 1977/2023

AB v PETER DAVID RATHJEN and UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DALY AsJ
30 MAY2025

1 These are my reasons for dismissing two interlocutory applications. The first is the plaintiff's interlocutory application applying for an order requiring the second defendant to discover documents related to the plaintiff's application to extend the limitation period within which to commence the principal proceedings. The second is the second defendant's application for: (i) an order for particulars of the plaintiff's claim and particulars of the application to extend time; and (ii) an order requiring the plaintiff to serve the first defendant with the originating process in the principal proceedings.

Introduction

2 The first defendant was, at the material time, the vice-chancellor of the second defendant, the University of Tasmania. The plaintiff has not served the first defendant with the originating process in the proceedings. The plaintiff's claim against the first defendant is for damages for personal injuries caused by assaults, non-consensual sexual contact or harassment alleged to have been committed by him at a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v Rathjen

Details

AGLC: AB v Rathjen [2025] TASSC 30
Case: [2025] TASSC 30
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AB commenced proceedings against Rathjen in the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that Rathjen's actions constituted an unlawful interference with AB's property. The case involved complex allegations regarding the handling and disposal of documents that were central to the dispute. The court was tasked with addressing the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the application for discovery and interrogatories, and determining whether certain documents should be disclosed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for discovery under rule 386(2) of the Supreme Court Rules was limited to matters in question in the proceeding, and if so, whether the categories of documents sought were relevant to those matters. AB argued that the documents were essential to understanding the nature of the alleged interference and the evidence supporting the claim. Rathjen contended that the documents sought were not relevant to the specific matters in question and that the application was overly broad.

The court considered the scope of the discovery application and the relevance of the documents to the matters in question. It held that the application for discovery should be limited to documents pertinent to the specific issues being litigated. The court determined that the categories of documents AB sought were not relevant to the matters in question in the proceeding, and thus dismissed the application. This decision underscored the need for discovery applications to be narrowly tailored to the specific issues at hand.

No specific final orders were made in this extract, as the decision focused primarily on the procedural aspect of the case. However, the dismissal of the application for discovery under rule 386(2) meant that AB would not be able to obtain the documents they sought unless they could demonstrate their relevance to the matters in question.

Orders