EVATT -v- BROOK [2014] WASC 480

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 480
Case No:	CIV:2072/2012	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	16/12/14
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order for further discovery
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MARK WILLIAM ADRIAN EVATT JOSEPH PETER IEMMA ALAN MICHAEL BROOK
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Discovery Application for further and better discovery Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 26 r 6
Case References:	Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Crittendon v Freehills Hollingdale & Page (1994) VSC 465 Falkingham v Hoffmans [2014] WASCA 140 Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92 Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36 Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130 Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18 Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19 Westraint Resources Pty Ltd v BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] WASC 17 Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 60

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : EVATT -v- BROOK [2014] WASC 480 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2072 of 2012 BETWEEN : MARK WILLIAM ADRIAN EVATT

First Plaintiff

JOSEPH PETER IEMMA

Second Plaintiff

AND

ALAN MICHAEL BROOK

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Application for further and better discovery - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 26 r 6

Result:

Order for further discovery

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : No appearance

Second Plaintiff : No appearance

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Chew & Matthews

Second Plaintiff : Chew & Matthews

Defendant : Tang Legal

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

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Crittendon v Freehills Hollingdale & Page (1994) VSC 465
Falkingham v Hoffmans [2014] WASCA 140
Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36
Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18
Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19
Westraint Resources Pty Ltd v BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] WASC 17
Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 60

BEECH J

Introduction

1 In this action the plaintiffs sue their former solicitor in relation to their failed investment in a scheme to acquire and subdivide land for profit.

2 The plaintiffs apply for orders for further and better discovery of a number of categories of documents. For the reasons that follow, further discovery should be ordered for some categories of documents.

3 It is convenient to begin by outlining the plaintiffs' pleaded case.

Outline of pleadings

4 In broad summary, the statement of claim alleges the following:

(1) between 2006 and 2008, Kenneth Fraser, Morag Fraser and a company, Frasers - The Project Managers Pty Ltd…

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 Evatt v Brook 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: [2014] WASC 480
Decision Date: 16 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Evatt v Brook was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Evatt, was seeking to obtain further and better discovery from the defendant, Mr Brook. The primary dispute centred around the adequacy of the discovery documents provided by the defendant and the plaintiff's assertion that additional documents were necessary for a fair trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's application for further and better discovery was warranted based on the specific circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the sufficiency of the discovery provided by the defendant, and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a legitimate need for additional documents to effectively prepare for the trial. The court had to consider the balance between the need for a fair trial and the principles of proportionality and cost-effectiveness in the discovery process. The plaintiff's argument hinged on the notion that the documents already provided were insufficient to understand the defendant's case fully and to prepare an effective defence.

The court found that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated the necessity for further discovery, and that the existing documents were sufficient for the plaintiff to prepare for the trial. However, the court acknowledged the importance of the discovery process in ensuring a fair trial and noted that the application for further discovery was not without merit. The court ordered that the plaintiff be granted limited further discovery to address specific concerns raised, but overall found that the plaintiff's application was not justified on the facts presented. The court emphasised the importance of the parties fulfilling their obligations under the rules of court and managing the discovery process in a manner that is both fair and efficient.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order for further discovery

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.