GIRGIS -v- POLIWKA [2016] WASCA 158
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 158 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:167/2015 | 12 AUGUST 2016 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ NEWNES JA MURPHY JA | 12/08/16 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SHERIF ELHAMY WADIE GIRGIS GIRGIS NOMINEES (WA) PTY LTD WASIL NICHOLI POLIWKA POLIWKA GROUP PTY LTD FIRST WESTERN ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Application for leave to appeal from decision refusing leave to issue interrogatories Leave to appeal refused |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32 Girgis v Poliwka [2015] WASC 446 Pearce v International Technologies Ltd [2009] WASCA 239 Platinum Systems Resourcing Pty Ltd v NRW Holdings [2013] WASCA 276 Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : GIRGIS -v- POLIWKA [2016] WASCA 158 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
- First Appellant
GIRGIS NOMINEES (WA) PTY LTD
Second Appellant
AND
WASIL NICHOLI POLIWKA
First Respondent
POLIWKA GROUP PTY LTD
Second Respondent
FIRST WESTERN ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
Third Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MITCHELL J
Citation : GIRGIS -v- POLIWKA [2015] WASC 446
File No : CIV 2425 of 2014
Catchwords:
Application for leave to appeal from decision refusing leave to issue interrogatories - Leave to appeal refused
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Appellant : Mr D H Solomon
Second Appellant : Mr D H Solomon
First Respondent : Mr M L Bennett
Second Respondent : Mr M L Bennett
Third Respondent : Mr M L Bennett
Solicitors:
First Appellant : Solomon Brothers
Second Appellant : Solomon Brothers
First Respondent : Bennett + Co
Second Respondent : Bennett + Co
Third Respondent : Bennett + Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32
Girgis v Poliwka [2015] WASC 446
Pearce v International Technologies Ltd [2009] WASCA 239
Platinum Systems Resourcing Pty Ltd v NRW Holdings [2013] WASCA 276
Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285
- MARTIN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 12 August 2016 and has been edited from the transcript).
1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the judge managing these proceedings in the commercial and managed cases list in which he refused leave to issue interrogatories to the appellants, who are the plaintiffs in the proceedings. It is well established that before leave will be granted to appeal from an interlocutory decision the applicant for leave will generally need to show that the decision appealed against is wrong…
Continue reading Girgis v Poliwka
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Girgis v Poliwka [2016] WASCA 158
- Case
- [2016] WASCA 158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Girgis v Poliwka, the parties were involved in a legal dispute that reached the Federal Court of Australia. Girgis, the applicant, sought leave to appeal a decision by the primary judge that refused permission to issue interrogatories to Poliwka, the respondent. The crux of the dispute centred around the discovery process in the context of civil litigation, specifically whether the applicant was entitled to issue interrogatories to the respondent in the circumstances presented.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly Rule 16.16, which governs the process of discovery. The court needed to determine if the primary judge's decision to refuse leave to issue interrogatories was correct, and whether there were any grounds upon which the applicant could appeal this decision. The applicant argued that the interrogatories were necessary for the proper administration of justice, while the respondent contended that the interrogatories were overly broad and not justified under the circumstances.
The court, upon reviewing the matter, found that the primary judge's decision was well-reasoned and aligned with the principles of the discovery process as set out in the Federal Court Rules. The court held that the interrogatories sought were not narrowly tailored and were excessively broad, and therefore, the primary judge's refusal to grant leave to issue them was appropriate. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court refused the leave to appeal the decision.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Federal Court Rules 2011, particularly Rule 16.16, which governs the process of discovery. The court needed to determine if the primary judge's decision to refuse leave to issue interrogatories was correct, and whether there were any grounds upon which the applicant could appeal this decision. The applicant argued that the interrogatories were necessary for the proper administration of justice, while the respondent contended that the interrogatories were overly broad and not justified under the circumstances.
The court, upon reviewing the matter, found that the primary judge's decision was well-reasoned and aligned with the principles of the discovery process as set out in the Federal Court Rules. The court held that the interrogatories sought were not narrowly tailored and were excessively broad, and therefore, the primary judge's refusal to grant leave to issue them was appropriate. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court refused the leave to appeal the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.