Jeffery v Roberts (No. 2) - [2001] NSWADT 115

CITATION: Jeffery & ors -v- Roberts (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 115

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Victor Robert Jeffery
Jack Ireland
Barry Clendinning
William Coombe
RESPONDENT
Lennard Bruce Roberts

FILE NUMBER: 003306

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/31/2001

DATE OF DECISION:
06/04/2001

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member

APPLICATION: Summons - application to set aside - Summons - general principles

MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998
Local Government Act 1993

CASES CITED: Victor Jeffery & Ors -v- Lennard Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66
Hunt -v- Wark (1986) 40 SASR 489
Maddison -v- Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651
The Queen -v- White (1976) 13 SASR 276
R -v- Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14
Southern Pacific Hotel Services Inc v Southern Pacific Hotel Corp Ltd.[1984] 1 NSWLR 710
Small v Commissioner of Railways (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564
Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 at 102.)

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANTS
In person
RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: 1. The application to set the summons aside is dismissed.; 2. Access to the documents provided under the amended summons is granted to both parties.

1 This decision concerns an application by Mr Lennard Roberts, to have a summons to produce documents set aside. Mr Roberts is the respondent in the principal proceedings, which gave rise to this application: Victor Jeffery & ors -v- Lennard Roberts ( File number 003306). These proceedings are part-heard and concern an application under s.329 of the Local Government Act1993 seeking an order that Mr Roberts be dismissed as councillor of the Great Lakes Local Council (the original application).

Background

2 On 17 October 2000, at the request of Mr Victor Jeffery, an applicant in the principal proceedings, a summons to produce documents was issued by the Registrar of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal), pursuant to s 84(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act1997 (the Tribunal Act). The summons was issued to the Deputy Director-General (Corporate Services) NSW Department of Education and Training (the Deputy Director-General).
3 The documents sought to be obtained under summons were set out in the Schedule to the summons and were described as follows:

“The leave applications, records and approvals by the Department of Education and training relating to Lennard Bruce Roberts directly in relation to his statement in his Candidate Information Sheet (already provided to the Department of Education as part of a recent Freedom of Information Application), that he was on long service leave on 24 May 2000, including any documents which verify or refute his statement in that Candidate information Sheet.
In addition the same type of documents which show the type of leave taken by Mr Roberts from 24 May 2000 to 1 July 2000 (the date of the Council Election).”

4 The summons was returnable on 13 November 2000. At a directions hearing on 21 November 2000 it was submitted on behalf of the Deputy Director-General that the summons should…

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 Jeffery v Roberts (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Jeffery v Roberts (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 115
Case: [2001] NSWADT 115
Decision Date: 06/04/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffery v Roberts (No. 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Jeffery, and the defendant, Roberts, regarding access to certain documents. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought access to documents that were initially ordered to be disclosed by the court but were later subject to a dispute over their relevance and privilege. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s application for access to these documents, arguing that they were either irrelevant or privileged.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to access the documents that had been ordered disclosed and whether any privilege claimed by the defendant was valid. The court needed to determine the scope of the disclosure order and whether the documents in question were subject to any recognised privilege. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's application to set aside the summons was valid and if it should be granted.

The court found that the documents were indeed subject to the earlier disclosure order and that the defendant's attempts to limit the scope of disclosure were not justified. The court further held that the documents were not privileged and that the defendant's claim of legal professional privilege was not valid. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application to set the summons aside and granted the plaintiff access to the documents in question. The court's decision ensured that both parties had access to the documents necessary for the proceedings, upholding the integrity of the disclosure process.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application to set the summons aside is dismissed.

(2) Access to the documents provided under the amended summons is granted to both parties.

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.

CITATION:	Jeffery & ors -v- Roberts (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 115
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Victor Robert Jeffery Jack Ireland Barry Clendinning William Coombe RESPONDENT Lennard Bruce Roberts
FILE NUMBER:	003306
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/31/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	06/04/2001
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Summons - application to set aside - Summons - general principles
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules (Transitional) Regulation 1998 Local Government Act 1993
CASES CITED:	Victor Jeffery & Ors -v- Lennard Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66 Hunt -v- Wark (1986) 40 SASR 489 Maddison -v- Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 The Queen -v- White (1976) 13 SASR 276 R -v- Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 Southern Pacific Hotel Services Inc v Southern Pacific Hotel Corp Ltd.[1984] 1 NSWLR 710 Small v Commissioner of Railways (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 at 102.)
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANTS In person RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	1. The application to set the summons aside is dismissed.; 2. Access to the documents provided under the amended summons is granted to both parties.