Akdogan v The Owners - Strata Plan No 55665

The plaintiff, Akdogan, sought to produce documents from the defendants, the owners of a strata plan, in relation to a dispute involving the ownership of a property. The defendants objected to the summons to produce, arguing that the information sought was privileged and irrelevant to the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the summons to produce should be set aside or amended, given the defendants' objection on the grounds of privilege and relevance. The court had to determine whether there was a legitimate forensic purpose for the documents and whether the potential prejudice to the defendants' interests outweighed the plaintiff's need for the information.

The court found that the plaintiff had a legitimate forensic purpose for seeking the documents, as they were relevant to the substantive proceedings. However, the court also considered the defendants' argument that the documents contained privileged information. The court concluded that the defendants' interests did not diverge significantly from those of the plaintiff, and therefore, the summons should not be set aside or amended. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in determining whether a document should be produced, taking into account the potential prejudice to the defendants' interests. The court dismissed the application to set aside and amend the summons, and directed that the summons remain returnable on the specified date and time.

In its orders, the court dismissed the application to set aside and amend the summons, and directed that the summons remain returnable on the specified date and time. The court also dispensed with a hearing regarding costs and directed that the costs of the interlocutory application be costs in the cause of the substantive proceedings. The court further provided directions for any future applications to vary the orders regarding costs, specifying the time limits and page limits for submissions. Overall, the court's decision upheld the plaintiff's right to seek the documents, while also protecting the defendants' interests to the extent possible.