Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited (No. 2)
Case
•
[2020] NSWSC 1157
•28 August 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 1157
[2020] NSWSC 1157
28 August 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited (No. 2) involved a dispute between a kitchen manufacturer and a travel agency regarding contractual terms, authority, and performance. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Apollo Kitchens, sought a declaration of rights in relation to agreements with the defendant, Goway Travel, and discovery of relevant documents and information.
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate scope of discovery sought by the plaintiff and the costs implications of vacating and adjourning a final hearing. Regarding discovery, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's proposed categories of discovery constituted a fishing expedition or were oppressive, and whether they amounted to a "chain of inquiry" discovery. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate costs to be awarded to the defendant in light of the adjournment and the conduct of both parties leading to the adjournment.
The court held that while both parties contributed to the vacation and adjournment of the final hearing, the primary cause was the plaintiff's omissions. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to pay two-thirds of the defendant's costs incurred due to the adjournment on the ordinary basis. On the discovery issue, the court ruled that the plaintiff's proposed categories of discovery did not constitute a fishing expedition or an oppressive request. The defendant was ordered to provide the discovery as sought by the plaintiff, covering relevant persons, the period of time, and the search terms specified.
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate scope of discovery sought by the plaintiff and the costs implications of vacating and adjourning a final hearing. Regarding discovery, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's proposed categories of discovery constituted a fishing expedition or were oppressive, and whether they amounted to a "chain of inquiry" discovery. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate costs to be awarded to the defendant in light of the adjournment and the conduct of both parties leading to the adjournment.
The court held that while both parties contributed to the vacation and adjournment of the final hearing, the primary cause was the plaintiff's omissions. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to pay two-thirds of the defendant's costs incurred due to the adjournment on the ordinary basis. On the discovery issue, the court ruled that the plaintiff's proposed categories of discovery did not constitute a fishing expedition or an oppressive request. The defendant was ordered to provide the discovery as sought by the plaintiff, covering relevant persons, the period of time, and the search terms specified.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Discovery & Disclosure
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Grifols (HK) Limited v DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1504
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited (No. 3)
[2020] NSWSC 1751
Grifols (HK) Limited v DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2020] NSWSC 1504
Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited (No. 3)
[2020] NSWSC 1751
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
3
Apollo Kitchens (NSW) Pty Limited v Goway Travel Pty Limited
[2020] NSWSC 852
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Goater
[2016] NSWSC 710