Cavric v Coopers Lybrand (ACT) Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 538

CITATION: Cavric v Coopers Lybrand (ACT) Ltd & Anor [2002] NSWSC 538

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20194/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 11 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 June 2002

PARTIES :

Nenad Cavric
(Plaintiff)
Coopers & Lybrand (ACT) Limited
(First Defendant)
Coopers & Lybrand (ACT) Pty Limited as trustee for the Coopers & Lybrand Trust
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 20194/2000

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Assistant Registrar Howe

COUNSEL :
Mr S McCarthy
(Plaintiff)
Mr Chris Hickey
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
McLachlan Chilton
(Plaintiff)
A O Ellison & Co
Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Review decision of Registrar - Discovery - Interrogatories

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules - Part 61 r 3; Part 23 r 5;
Part 24 r 5

CASES CITED: Beaufort Air-Sea Equipment Pty Ltd v Emhart Australia Pty (NSWSC unreported, Master Malpass, 18 December 1992)
Brijeski v Sunbeam Corporation Limited (NSWSC, unreported Master Greenwood, 29 January 1997)
Westpac Banking Corporation v Abemond Pty Ltd and Westpac Banking Corporation v Cameron (NSWSC unreported, Santow J, 3 November 1994)
Modern Woodcraft Pty Ltd v Nott (NSWSC unreported, Young J, 7 March 1997)
Mariala Estates Limited v Anthanasi & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1013
Abram v National Australia Bank Limited [2001] NSWSC 916
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
Stavert v Stavert & Anor (NSWSC unreported, 30 July 1998, Master Malpass)
Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1999) 90 FCR 531
American Flange & Manufacturing Co Inc v Rheem (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [1965] NSWR 193
Boyle v Downs [1978] 2 NSWLR 381

DECISION: (1) The decision of Assistant Registrar Howe dated 29 April 2002 in relation to discovery and interrogatories is affirmed; (2) The notice of motion dated 1 May 2002 is dismissed; (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2002

20194/2000 - NENAD CAVRIC v COOPERS & LYBRAND
(ACT) LIMITED & ANOR

1 MASTER: By notice of motion filed 1 May 2002 the plaintiff seeks orders pursuant to Part 61 r 3 of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) that firstly, the order made by Assistant Registrar Howe on 29 April 2002 be set aside; secondly, that the decision made by Assistant Registrar Howe on 29 April 2002 be reviewed; thirdly, that the first and second defendants provide answers to the notice to answer interrogatories served upon them; and fourthly, that the first and second defendants provide discovery of documents contained in the notice of discovery. The first defendant is Coopers & Lybrand (ACT) Limited and the second defendant is Coopers & Lybrand (ACT) Pty Limited as trustee for the Coopers & Lybrand Trust.

2 The proceeding concerns a personal injury claim. The plaintiff commenced employment with the defendants in 1992. The plaintiff was employed by Coopers & Lybrand in its Stamp Duties Division under…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cavric v Coopers Lybrand (ACT) Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 538
Decision Date: 19 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cavric v Coopers Lybrand (ACT) Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Cavric, and the defendant, Coopers Lybrand (ACT) Ltd, concerning the discovery and interrogatories process within the context of civil litigation. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was tasked with reviewing the Registrar's decision regarding the discovery and interrogatories.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar had correctly exercised their discretion in allowing the discovery and interrogatories, and if the orders made were in accordance with the relevant rules of court. The plaintiff argued that the Registrar had abused their discretion and that the discovery and interrogatories were overly broad and not justified by the circumstances of the case. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the Registrar's decision was appropriate and that the discovery and interrogatories were necessary for the fair resolution of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the principles governing the exercise of discretion by the Registrar in matters of discovery and interrogatories. The court considered the balance between the parties' rights to access relevant information and the potential for oppressive or irrelevant discovery. It was noted that the Registrar's discretion must be exercised judiciously, and the orders made should be proportionate to the needs of the case. After careful consideration, the court found that the Registrar had not erred in their exercise of discretion. The discovery and interrogatories were deemed appropriate and necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to review the Registrar's decision.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's application to review the Registrar's decision was dismissed. The orders for discovery and interrogatories as made by the Registrar were upheld. This outcome ensured that the litigation process could proceed with the necessary access to relevant information, while also respecting the principles of fairness and proportionality in the discovery process.

Orders