ANZ Banking Group v Arapali

ANZ Banking Group sought discovery of documents from Arapali in relation to the latter's property dealings. The primary dispute centred on whether the requested documents were relevant to the issues as they appeared from the pleadings, and whether the property in question had been disclosed in the particulars. The court was tasked with determining whether it should order discovery of documents that were not relevant to the issues as they appeared from the pleadings, and whether it should order discovery of documents where the property the subject of the order was not disclosed in the particulars.

The court considered whether the discovery requests were overly ambitious and whether they were justified. The court held that the requests were overly ambitious and not justified, as the documents sought were not relevant to the issues as they appeared from the pleadings, and the property in question was not disclosed in the particulars. The court noted that the general rule is that costs follow the event, but where the requests made by motion were overly ambitious and the argument was justified, it may order costs in favour of the party who had substantial success on the application.

The court found that Arapali had substantial success on the application, and accordingly, ordered ANZ Banking Group to pay Arapali's costs of the application. The court held that the costs should be taxed on an indemnity basis, and that the amount of the costs should be determined by the Registrar. The court also held that the costs should be paid within 28 days of the order. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that discovery requests are relevant and justified, and that the property in question is disclosed in the particulars.