Garratt's v Thangathurai - [2001] NSWSC 945

CITATION: Garratt's v Thangathurai [2001] NSWSC 945

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50083/01

HEARING DATE(S): 26.09.01, 12.10.01

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2001

PARTIES :

Garratt's Ltd v Thanga Thangathurai

JUDGMENT OF: Hunter J

COUNSEL : Applicant/Defendant: D L Williams
Respondent/Plaintiff: W G Muddle

SOLICITORS: Applicant/Defendant: Dibbs Barker Gosling
Respondent/Plaintiff: Cowley Hearne

CATCHWORDS: Practice & Procedure - discovery - relevance of category.

DECISION: Discovery ordered in terms of par 44 of reasons for judgment. Costs of application to be costs in the cause.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

Hunter J

Wednesday 24 October 2001

50083/01 GARRATT’S LIMITED –V- THANGA THANATHURAI
Reasons for Judgment

1 There are competing notices of motion before me by each the plaintiff and the defendant, both relating to discovery. The defendant’s motion seeks the following orders:

“1. The plaintiff to provide discovery sought in paragraph 1 of the defendant’s solicitors request for categories of documents for discovery to the plaintiff’s solicitors dated 31 August 2001.

2. Leave be given to the defendant to file and serve an amended defence in the form annexed and marked “A”.”

2 Both orders are resisted, although in the case of the application for leave to amend, there is no objection in principle to the proposed amendment, rather the plaintiff requires compliance by the defendant with his alleged obligations of discovery before he is permitted to amend.

3 The plaintiff’s motion for discovery was put over to 19 October 2001 while the defendant’s motion proceeded to hearing on the basis that the defendant would be granted leave to amend as sought in his motion. The discovery sought by the defendant is that set out in the letter of the defendant’s solicitors of 31 August 2001, namely the following:

“In this respect, the word “

document

” includes, without limitation, correspondence, facsimiles, notes, diaries,

memoranda, minutes, agendas, reports, agreements, proposals, e-mails, notes of all discussions, or other

written or electronic records of any kind (including all drafts of all such documents).

1. All documents relating to the Loan & Option Agreement (“

the

LOA

”) and Shareholders Deed, dated 10 December 1999 (

the

“

Documents

”), including but not limited to negotiations over the terms of the Documents (in particular, rights of assignment), the plaintiff’s performance of its obligations under the LOA (including requests for drawdowns and any correspondence between the parties to the Documents), and communications between the plaintiff and any of the other parties to the Documents regarding transferral of shares in I.C. & Count Technologies Limited from the defendant to the plaintiff.

2. All documents relating to the agreement dated 13 January 2001

(the “Agreement”)

, including but not limited to negotiations over the terms of the Agreement, communications with other parties to the Documents (including obtaining consent from these parties to execute a Deed of Novation), and communications with the defendant both prior to and subsequent to entering in to the Agreement.”

4 The plaintiff’s response to…

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 Garratt's v Thangathurai

Details

AGLC: Garratt's v Thangathurai [2001] NSWSC 945
Case: [2001] NSWSC 945
Decision Date: 24 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Thangathurai against an order for discovery made by Garratt's was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case concerned a dispute between the parties regarding a contract for the sale of a business, with the buyer alleging that the seller had breached the contract. Thangathurai sought discovery of documents from Garratt's, which were alleged to be relevant to the case. Garratt's objected to the discovery, arguing that the documents were not relevant to the issues in the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the documents sought by Thangathurai were relevant to the case. The court had to consider the scope of discovery in relation to the relevance of the category of documents sought. The court also had to determine whether the documents were necessary to assist Thangathurai in proving their case or whether they were merely collateral to the issues in dispute.

The court held that the documents sought by Thangathurai were relevant to the case and that the scope of discovery in a civil proceeding was broad. The court found that the relevance of the category of documents was not a sufficient basis to exclude them from discovery. The court held that the documents were necessary to assist Thangathurai in proving their case and that the documents were not merely collateral to the issues in dispute. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the order for discovery was upheld.

The court's decision highlights the importance of the relevance of documents in discovery and the broad scope of discovery in civil proceedings. The court's finding that the documents sought were relevant to the case and necessary to assist Thangathurai in proving their case reinforces the principle that discovery is a powerful tool in civil litigation. The court's decision also serves as a reminder to parties in civil proceedings to carefully consider the scope of discovery and the relevance of documents before objecting to discovery.

Orders