Hamod v State of NSW - [2007] NSWSC 425

CITATION: Hamod v State of NSW [2007] NSWSC 425

HEARING DATE(S): 5 April 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 May 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION: (1) Order that the first defendant give discovery in accordance with the Amended Categories of Documents for Discovery by First Defendant dated 27 March 2007 within 28 days; (2) Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS: Discovery

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules - 21.8
The Law of Torts, 9th Ed (1998)

CASES CITED: A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10
Houda v New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1053
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
Priest v New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 12

PARTIES: Anthony Hamod - First Plaintiff
Hamock Investments Pty Limited - Second Plaintiff
State of New South Wales - First Defendant
UBS Australia Limited - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20147/2003

COUNSEL: Mr R McKeand SC - First Plaintiff
Mr J E Maconachie QC with Mr M Hutchings - First Defendant

SOLICITORS: Mr S Diad,
Simon Diab & Associates - First Plaintiff
Ms J Snell,
Senior Solicitor, Crown Solicitor's Office - First Defendant
Mr P Holmes,
Allens Arthur Robinson - Second Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2007

20147/2003 - ANTHONY HAMOD & ANOR v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR
JUDGMENT (Discovery)

1 HER HONOUR: By notice of notion filed 11 September 2006, the first plaintiff seeks discovery against the first defendant, the State of New South Wales. The first defendant opposes such an order.

2 On 23 March 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended list of categories for discovery by the first defendant. They are:

A. the Platinum Certificate that is the subject of these proceedings, or

(b) All documents created by New South Wales Police relating to investigations into the matters that were the subject of the prosecution of the First Plaintiff (the subject of these proceedings), or relating to that prosecution, including documents created subsequent to the prosecution.

(c) All surveillance and transcripts of telephone intercepts produced by New South Wales Police for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of the First Plaintiff in relation to the Platinum Certificate.

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 Hamod v State of NSW 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: [2007] NSWSC 425
Decision Date: 2 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hamod v State of NSW was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the discovery provided by the State of New South Wales to the plaintiff, Hamod, in the context of a personal injury claim. Hamod sought to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The legal issues the court had to address involved whether the State had provided sufficient information and documents to Hamod to enable a fair assessment of the claim. The court needed to determine whether the discovery process complied with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and if the State had fulfilled its obligations under common law to provide full and frank disclosure.

The court examined the extent of the discovery provided by the State and considered whether it was reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances of the case. The court found that the State had not provided all relevant documents and information that Hamod was entitled to under the law. Specifically, the State failed to disclose certain internal reports and communications that could have been pertinent to Hamod’s claim. The court concluded that the discovery was inadequate and that the State had not met its duty to provide full disclosure. This failure, according to the court, prejudiced Hamod’s ability to adequately assess and potentially pursue his claim. The court ordered the State to supplement the discovery with the missing information and set a new timeline for the completion of the discovery process. Additionally, the court directed the State to pay Hamod’s costs associated with the application for further discovery.

Orders