In the matter of Eastmark Holdings Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) and 1 Denison Street Holdings Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed; In the matter of Eastmark Holdings Pty Limited (receivers..

Eastmark Holdings Pty Limited and 1 Denison Street Holdings Pty Ltd, with receivers and managers appointed, were involved in a dispute that reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core of the matter was the application to set aside notices to produce documents, as well as a substantive application to terminate a deed of company arrangement. The applicants sought to challenge the validity of these notices and the arrangement deed itself, raising issues that required judicial scrutiny.

The court had to determine whether the applicants were entitled to present evidence that was not only pertinent to proving the grounds for terminating the deed but also relevant to the exercise of discretion. The legal question of relevance was addressed by considering whether it was plausible that the documents sought might contribute to the available evidence. The strength of the defence did not affect the relevance of the documents. The court also considered the appropriateness of early production of documents under the relevant practice note and the specificity of the notices under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

In its reasoning, the court held that the applicants were entitled to adduce evidence that was relevant, even if it was merely "on the cards" that the documents might add to the available evidence. The court found that the notices to produce were not sufficiently specific, which impacted their validity under the relevant rules. Consequently, the court allowed the application to set aside the notices to produce and directed the parties to engage in further proceedings regarding the termination of the deed of company arrangement.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the notices to produce and directing the parties to further the proceedings in accordance with the court's directions. The court's decision highlighted the importance of specificity in notices to produce and the breadth of relevance in evidence presented in such proceedings.