Delgado v BevChain Pty Limited - [2022] WADC 98

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   DELGADO -v- BEVCHAIN PTY LIMITED [2022] WADC 98
CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN
HEARD:   3 & 9 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
PUBLISHED           :   16 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2498 of 2021
BETWEEN:   MICHAEL JOHN DELGADO
Plaintiff / Respondent
AND
BEVCHAIN PTY LIMITED
Defendant / Applicant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Application for further and better discovery - Power to make discovery orders - Principles to be applied - Whether orders should be made in relation to documents and categories of document sought

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 87

District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 6, r 13, r 24, r 46, r 46(1), r 46(2), r 46(3)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4B, O 26, O 26 r 1 - r 7, O 26 r 8 - r 13, O 26 r 4, O 26 r 5, O 26 r 6, O 26 r 6(2), O 26 r 7, O 26 r 7(3), O 26 r 7(3)(a) - r 7(3)(d), O 26, r 8, O 26 r 9, O 26 r 8(1), O 26 r 9(1), O 26 r 11

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff / Respondent	:	Mr A J Stewart
Defendant / Applicant	:	Mr N Morrissey

Solicitors:

Plaintiff / Respondent	:	Accident Claims Lawyers
Defendant / Applicant	:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Perth)

Cases referred to in decision:

Airwaves Goldcoast Pty Ltd v Caneflight Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WADC 28
Allen v Merym Pty Ltd t/as Emco Building [No 2] [2022] WADC 45
Chandler v Water Corporation [2004] WASC 95
Dray v Bae Systems Plc [2011] WADC 93
Marina Boulevard Medical Services Pty Ltd v Henson [2022] WADC 88
Meyer v Solomon [2021] WASCA 168
Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd v Burniston [2012] WASC 26
Pollard v Endale Pty Ltd [2009] WADC 97

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 9 November 2022. They have been edited to correct matters of grammar and infelicity of expression.)

Introduction

This is an application for further and better discovery by the defendant in a personal injuries action, arising out of a work accident which occurred on 14 April 2020, in which the defendant has admitted negligence but in which causation of injury and quantum are in dispute.[1] The action is listed for a five‑day trial commencing on 5 December 2022.
[1] For ease of reference, in these reasons I will refer to the applicant as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff, being their respective positions in the substantive action.
The application was heard on 3 November 2022. Both parties made submissions orally and in writing,[2] and filed affidavits in support of their respective positions.[3]
[2] Defendant's submissions in support of application for further discovery and production filed 31 October 2022 (defendant's written submissions); plaintiff's outline of submissions filed 2 November 2022 (plaintiff's written submissions

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.

Continue reading Delgado v BevChain Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Delgado v BevChain Pty Limited [2022] WADC 98
Case: [2022] WADC 98
Decision Date: 16 NOVEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Delgado v BevChain Pty Limited involves the plaintiff, Delgado, who sought further and better discovery from the defendant, BevChain Pty Limited. The dispute arose from a personal injury claim where Delgado alleged that BevChain was negligent in the supply of alcohol to a third party, leading to injuries sustained by Delgado. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought an order for additional discovery of documents, specifically those related to the supply of alcohol and BevChain's practices in that regard.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the orders sought by Delgado for further and better discovery should be granted. The court had to consider the principles guiding such discovery applications, including the relevance and proportionality of the documents sought. The court also needed to determine whether the documents and categories of documents sought by Delgado were reasonably necessary for the fair conduct of the proceedings and whether there was sufficient justification for the further discovery.

The court found that the orders for further and better discovery should not be made. It held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the documents sought were necessary for the fair conduct of the proceedings. The court noted that many of the documents sought were not directly relevant to the issues in the case and that the plaintiff had not adequately shown how the additional discovery would assist in the resolution of the matter. The court also considered the balance of convenience and the potential for prejudice to the defendant if the orders were made. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application for further and better discovery should be dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in relation to the application for discovery. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent criteria that must be met for an application for further discovery to succeed, highlighting the importance of relevance, necessity, and proportionality in such applications.

Orders