Gillies v Downer EDI Limited - [2011] NSWSC 265

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gillies v Downer EDI Limited [2011] NSWSC 265
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 08 April 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
The defendant is to give discovery of documents within the categories identified by the Court.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Discovery - Must be relevant to a fact in issue - Whether discovery categories are too broad.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: ACD Tridon v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 77
Adelaide Bank Ltd v Property Builders Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1147
Gillies v Downer EDI Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1323
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
National Australia Bank v Idoport Pty Limited [2000] NSWCA 8
Priest v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 12
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Stephen John Gillies (P)
Downer EDI Limited (D)
Representation: Counsel:
On the papers
Solicitors:
Dibbs Barker (P)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (D)

File Number(s): 2007/265271

Judgment

Mr Gillies was the chief executive officer of Downer EDI Limited from 1 June 1997 until August or September 2007.

Mr Gillies has brought proceedings against Downer EDI which relate to the circumstances of his removal as chief executive officer, and to whether there are any outstanding monies owed to him by Downer EDI.

Downer EDI cross-claims against Mr Gillies for repayment of monies which it claims are outstanding to it, and for other relief.

Procedural History

Mr Gillies commenced the proceedings in this Court by a statement of claim filed on 1 November 2007.

The proceedings are fixed for hearing for a two week period commencing on 9 May 2011.

In the course of case management, an issue about discovery of documents was identified between the parties. The parties have resolved some of that issue, but remain in dispute about the balance of it.

In accordance with my practice in the case management of matters, rather than requiring the parties to go to the cost and expense of a full hearing on a discovery issue, I will deal with the issue on the basis of written submissions and the written evidence filed with the Court and relied upon by the parties.

Principles of Discovery

Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the Court has power to order a party to give discovery in accordance with r 21.2.

In exercising that power, the Court is obliged to give effect to the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the UCPR, namely: " ...to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings ": s 56, Civil Procedure Act .

Importantly, r 21.2(4) of the UCPR limits an order for discovery to only those documents which are "... relevant to a fact in issue ". Rule 21.1(2) defines that term in the following way:

"(2) For the purpose of this Division, a document or matter is to be taken to be relevant…

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 Gillies v Downer EDI Limited 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: [2011] NSWSC 265
Decision Date: 08 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gillies v Downer EDI Limited was a case heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Gillies, sought to obtain documents from the defendant, Downer EDI Limited, under the auspices of discovery, in the context of a proceeding related to an employment dispute. Mr Gillies argued that the documents in question were relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings and should be disclosed. Downer EDI Limited resisted the application, asserting that the categories of documents sought were too broad and not sufficiently relevant to any fact in issue.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the categories of documents sought by Mr Gillies were too broad and whether such breadth rendered them irrelevant to the facts in issue. The court was required to determine the scope of the discovery process, considering the relevance of the documents sought in relation to the facts in issue, and whether the categories of documents proposed were appropriately tailored to the specific issues at hand.

The court held that the categories of documents sought by Mr Gillies were indeed too broad and not narrowly tailored to the facts in issue. The court emphasised that discovery should be relevant to a fact in issue and should not encompass documents that are only peripherally related or speculatively relevant. The court found that the proposed categories did not sufficiently align with the specific facts in issue, leading to the conclusion that the application for discovery should be dismissed. The court’s reasoning underscored the importance of precision and relevance in the discovery process, ensuring that the scope of document disclosure is appropriately confined to matters directly pertinent to the facts in issue.

As a result, the court dismissed Mr Gillies’ application for discovery, finding that the categories of documents sought were too broad and not sufficiently relevant to any fact in issue. The court’s decision highlighted the necessity for litigants to carefully tailor their discovery requests to ensure that they are narrowly focused on the facts pertinent to the case at hand.

Orders