Green v Wilden Pty Ltd - [2002] WASC 234

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: GREEN & ORS -v- WILDEN PTY LTD & ORS [2002] WASC 234

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 10 & 20 SEPTEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 3 OCTOBER 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 3049 of 1991
CIV 3050 of 1991
CIV 2965 of 1990
CIV 2966 of 1990
Consolidated by order dated 5 August 1998

BETWEEN: GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN
First Plaintiff
W J GREEN & CO (1984) PTY LTD (ACN 008 851 867)
Second Plaintiff
SHARYN LEE GREEN
GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN
JULIE ANNE GREEN
WILLIAM JOSEPH GREEN
NORMA GLENYCE GREEN
Third Plaintiffs
AND
WILDEN PTY LTD (ACN 009 143 033)
First Defendant
MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 340 158)
Second Defendant
TACE PTY LTD (ACN 009 204 915)
Third Defendant
SYDNEY JAMES CHESSON
Fourth Defendant
BERT LEONARD DENBOER
Fifth Defendant
CALLAO PTY LTD (ACN 008 867 552)
Sixth Defendant
BENRONE PTY LTD (ACN 008 931 084)
Seventh Defendant
DELTABROOK PTY LTD (ACN 009 462 695)
Eighth Defendant
JOHN MARTIN KELLY
Ninth Defendant

Catchwords:

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

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application successful in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr M L Bennett
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr M L Bennett
Third Plaintiffs             :     Mr M L Bennett
First Defendant             :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Second Defendant         :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Third Defendant           :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Sixth Defendant            :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Seventh Defendant        :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Eighth Defendant          :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic
Ninth Defendant           :     Mr R H B Pringle QC & Mr T Galic

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Bennett & Co
Second Plaintiff            :     Bennett & Co
Third Plaintiffs             :     Bennett & Co
First Defendant             :     Galic & Co
Second Defendant         :     Galic & Co
Third Defendant           :     Galic & Co
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     Galic & Co
Sixth Defendant            :     Galic & Co
Seventh Defendant        :     Galic & Co
Eighth Defendant          :     Galic & Co
Ninth Defendant           :     Galic & Co

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

Green v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950311; 15 June 1995

Case(s) also cited:

Anderson v Wallace (1835) 6 ER 1347
British Association of Glass Bottle Manufacturers Ltd v Nettlefold [1912] AC 709
Caledonian Rail Co v Lockhart [1860] All ER 900
Horwitz Grahame Books Pty Ltd v Mid-City Centre Pty Ltd (1990) NSW ConvR 55-514
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341

MASTER SANDERSON: By chamber summons filed 30 July 2002 the plaintiffs sought orders against the first, second, third and fourth defendants for further and better discovery. The…

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 Green v Wilden Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Green v Wilden Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 234
Case: [2002] WASC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Green v Wilden Pty Ltd sought further and better discovery against several defendants in a long-running and complex litigation. The application focused on financial documents and internal workings of the defendants. The defendants initially opposed the application but later sought to amend their defences, which led to an adjournment. The plaintiffs' application was supported by an affidavit that detailed the relevance of certain documents to the dispute, particularly regarding the valuation of trust assets and liabilities. The court examined the legal issues raised by the pleadings and the defendants' expert report. The court found that some documents, particularly those related to interest calculations on loans, should be discovered. However, the court determined that other documents, such as certain financial statements and documents related to a newsagency transaction, were not necessary for discovery at that stage of the proceedings. The court also addressed issues regarding the provision of particulars and formal discovery of certain documents.

The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendants to provide discovery of documents relating to interest calculations on loans, as well as particulars and formal discovery of certain other documents. The court denied discovery of financial statements and documents related to the newsagency transaction, as these were not deemed necessary at that stage of the proceedings. The court reserved further orders on the precise form of orders and costs pending further submissions from counsel.

Orders