Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 4)

In *Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 4)*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision and raised a constitutional challenge to the validity of a statute. The applicant also sought orders directing compliance with notices to produce and that admissions be given, referencing provisions of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) and the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).

The court was required to determine several procedural issues, including whether to grant a separate hearing for certain questions raised by the relief sought, and whether to order compliance with notices to produce or defer those questions. The court also considered the obligation of parties and lawyers to facilitate the just, quick, and cheap resolution of real issues under section 56 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) and the need to identify grounds for relief under rule 51.45 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).

Basten JA rejected the request for a separate determination of certain questions, finding it unlikely to save expense or delay or promote efficient allocation of court resources. The court also ordered that questions of compliance with, or setting aside of, the notices to produce be stood over to the hearing of the summons. The court noted statements from counsel for the State regarding consideration of admissions, production of specific documents, and best endeavours to obtain further documents, while also noting the State's reservation of relevance in relation to all material sought by the notice to produce. Leave was granted to the applicant to file a second further amended summons, and the hearing date was adjusted.