Collins v Blackham and Blackham

[2016] QDC 152

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Collins v Blackham & Blackham [2016] QDC 152

PARTIES:

Jeffery Collins

(appellant)

v

Michael Blackham & Dawn Blackham

(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

3863/15

DIVISION:

Appellant

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from Magistrates Court

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Redcliffe

DELIVERED ON:

17 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2016

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal granted (in part)1.            

That the appellant be provided with a copy of the document entitled “Release, Discharge and Indemnity” contained in a sealed envelope on District Court Appeal file 3863/15.  2.            

CATCHWORDS:

CASES:

LEGISLATION:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – GROUNDS FOR RESISTING PRODUCTION – PRIVILEGE – where respondent settled with second defendant – where respondent’s cause of action against the second defendant arises because of a statutory warranty to which the appellant is subject - whether the first defendant is entitled to inspect agreement settling proceedings between the respondent and second defendant

Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd and Anor (2001) 205 CLR 635

Carr & Purves v Thomas [2009] NSWCA 208

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 61

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) s 47

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ss 443, 444

COUNSEL:

R Cameron for the appellant.

C M Tam for the respondents.

SOLICITORS:

Gleeson Klein Stegman Lawyers for the appellant.

RB Lawyers for the respondents.

Introduction

1. Jeffrey Collins (the appellant) is the first defendant in civil proceedings in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court brought by Michael Blackham and Dawn Blackham (the respondents).  The appellant appeals the decision of the learned magistrate at Redcliffe on 4 September 2015 refusing the appellant’s application for disclosure of documents or instruments that evidence the terms of compromise between the respondents and Ross Edward Pedley (second defendant) and Debra Pedley; and dismissing an application to join Ross Pedley as a third party out of time. 

1. The appellant in his outline of argument abandoned that part of the appeal in respect of the learned magistrate’s refusal to grant leave to file and serve a third party notice against Ross Pedley and Debra Pedley (trading as “Residential Roofing Solutions”).  Further, upon agreement between Mr Cameron (counsel for the appellant) and Mr Tam (counsel for the respondent), after I viewed a copy of the instrument of compromise between the respondents and the second defendant, and in the light of my assurance that the document appeared on its face to encapsulate the settlement of the proceedings between the respondent and the second defendant, Mr Cameron indicated the appellant was no longer pursuing that part of the appeal which related to disclosure of “without prejudice” communications between the respondents and the second defendant in the proceedings.

1. What remains in contention is the issue as to whether the appellant is entitled to disclosure of a document titled “Release, Discharge and Indemnity,” the effect of which, in a letter dated 14 January 2015, the respondents’ lawyers advised…