Coogee Chemicals Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission

[1999] WASC 189

COOGEE CHEMICALS PTY LTD -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [1999] WASC 189

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 189
Case No:	PWA:1/1997	Heard:	28 SEPTEMBER 1999
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	30/09/99
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	COOGEE CHEMICALS PTY LTD WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Practice Discovery Inspection of documents
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COOGEE CHEMICALS PTY LTD -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [1999] WASC 189 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 28 SEPTEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 30 SEPTEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : PWA 1 of 1997 BETWEEN : COOGEE CHEMICALS PTY LTD

Claimant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Discovery - Inspection of documents

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Claimant : Mr C E Chenu
Defendant : Ms P E Cahill

Solicitors:

Claimant : Durack & Zilko
Defendant : Pullinger Stewart

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: On 27 August 1999 I ordered the defendant to discover certain documents listed in the order. The order has been extracted.

2 The documents have now been discovered in an affidavit of Mr Peter Melbin sworn 10 September 1999. The defendant, however, declines to produce these documents on the ground that they are not relevant to the issues in this case. The resumption of the land took place on 28 November 1995 and the defendant contends that these documents cannot possibly be relevant to the value of the land then as they were created after that date.

3 I consider the documents are arguably relevant to the issues in this case. I consider the fifth document listed for example - the defendant's final response to the summary of questions raised during the public submission period which final response was forwarded to the Department of Environmental Planning in April 1999. If, for example, that document said the land resumed was only partly contaminated and was capable of being remedied by the expenditure of $X, that would be admissible at trial as a declaration against interest. If I be wrong in that, and the documents are not admissible, then no irreparable harm will be done as the Judge will rule the documents inadmissible at trial.

4 I will order the defendant to give inspection of the discovered documents to the plaintiff within 14 days. I will order costs of the application to be in the cause.