Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges - [2023] NSWDC 125

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges [2023] NSWDC 125
Hearing dates: 27 April 2023
Date of orders: 28 April 2023
Decision date: 28 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs 41 - 42

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – defamation suit - discovery dispute – no issues of principle

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 21.1, 21.2

Cases Cited:
Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558
Hunter New England Local Health District v Munters Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 788
Palavi v Radio 2UE Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 264
The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 425

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Farah Georges (plaintiff)
George Georges (defendant)
Bassam Georges (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Sibtain SC for the plaintiff
Mr K Smark SC for the defendants
Solicitors:
Banki Haddock Fiora for the plaintiff
Blackbay Lawyers for the defendants

File Number(s): 2022/00191186
2022/00203513
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Background

This judgment deals with a further interlocutory dispute in two related defamation proceedings between brothers. The relevant context was set out in a judgment I delivered concerning the validity of concerns notices on 15 November 2022 (Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558) and these reasons assume the reader’s familiarity with that judgment.
The dispute concerns categories for discovery that the plaintiff requested of the defendant, in both proceedings. As I did in relation to the earlier judgment I delivered last November, where appropriate, I will use the proceeding commenced against George Georges as representative or template for the resolution of the same issues in the proceeding against Bassam Georges. Subject to a qualification, the language of the categories requested in the requests in each proceeding is materially the same. A qualification to that is category 14, which I will address later.
To say something more which is relevant to the context in which this application is before the Court, in the ‘George proceeding’ there are 17 matters complained of and in the ‘Bassam proceeding’ there are 8 matters complained of. Senior Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the publications were made for a collateral purpose of exerting pressure upon the plaintiff in subsisting legal proceedings involving the brothers in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Local Court of New South Wales.
If the defences fail in each proceeding, the plaintiff has conveyed his intention to rely upon a vast array of matters in aggravation. These were indicated not only in his pleadings, but were supplemented by additional matters set out in his solicitor’s letter to the defendants’ solicitors on 14 March 2023.

Principles

For the purpose of this application, I respectfully adopt the statement of principles as to discovery identified by Bellew J in Hunter New England Local Health District v Munters Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 788 at [19], expressed as follows (omitting citations):

“• discovery cannot be ordered other than in respect of documents that…

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 Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges

Details

AGLC: Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges [2023] NSWDC 125
Case: [2023] NSWDC 125
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a dispute between siblings, involving a defamation suit and a subsequent discovery dispute. The plaintiffs, George and George, sought to obtain documents from their brother, Mr Georges, for use in their defamation action. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the discovery of documents from their brother. The court had to determine whether there were any issues of principle involved in the discovery dispute that required its intervention.

The court found that there were no issues of principle that warranted its involvement in the discovery dispute. The plaintiffs' entitlement to the documents in question was not in question, and the only matter left to be resolved was the scope of the discovery order. The court concluded that the matter was better left to the parties to resolve between themselves, and there was no need for the court to intervene. The court emphasised that it would only become involved in a discovery dispute if there were issues of principle that required its resolution.

As a result of the court's findings, it made no orders regarding the discovery dispute. Instead, it left the matter to the parties to resolve between themselves. The court did, however, make orders regarding the costs of the application, awarding costs to the plaintiffs in relation to the costs of the application.

In summary, the court found that there were no issues of principle involved in the discovery dispute between the siblings. It emphasised that it would only become involved in such disputes if there were issues of principle that required its resolution. The court made no orders regarding the discovery dispute but did make orders in relation to the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 41 - 42

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges [2023] NSWDC 125
Hearing dates:	27 April 2023
Date of orders:	28 April 2023
Decision date:	28 April 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs 41 - 42
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – defamation suit - discovery dispute – no issues of principle
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 21.1, 21.2
Cases Cited:	Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558 Hunter New England Local Health District v Munters Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 788 Palavi v Radio 2UE Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 264 The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 425
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Farah Georges (plaintiff) George Georges (defendant) Bassam Georges (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Sibtain SC for the plaintiff Mr K Smark SC for the defendants Solicitors: Banki Haddock Fiora for the plaintiff Blackbay Lawyers for the defendants
File Number(s):	2022/00191186 2022/00203513
Publication restriction:	Nil