Legal Research
Cases
La Valette v Chambers-Grundy

La Valette v Chambers-Grundy

Case [2019] NSWSC 1355 9 October 2019

Discovery & Disclosure

Jurisdiction

Conflict of Laws

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Conflict of Laws

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: La Valette v Chambers-Grundy [2019] NSWSC 1355
Hearing dates: 11 September 2019
Date of orders: 09 October 2019
Decision date: 09 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Refuse leave for the issue of the notice to produce to the first defendant.
2. Refuse the application for a direction to be made to the first defendant to complete application forms for the release of medical records.
3. Refuse leave for the issue of a subpoena coupled with a letter of request to be sent to the deceased’s general practitioner in Bermuda.
4. Defer the application for leave for the issue of a subpoena coupled with a letter of request to be sent to the deceased’s medical practitioners/medical clinics in Nevada, California and Florida pending the outcome of the applications that have now been made by the first defendant for the release of the deceased’s medical records.
5. Reserve the question of costs of the notice of motion filed 30 August 2019.
6. Stand the notice of motion over to a date to be fixed for final ruling on the deferred part of that application.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – issue of notice to produce documents recording communications with overseas medical practitioners – whether merely a fishing expedition
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Application for leave to serve subpoenas and accompanying letters of request in Bermuda, Nevada, Florida and California for production of medical records – whether jurisdiction pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention or inherent jurisdiction of the court
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 61, 62, 68
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 581(4)
Evidence Act 1905 (Cth)
Evidence on Commission Act 1995 (NSW), ss 6(1)(c) , 6(2), 20(1)(c)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 59
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 2.1, 11A.4, 11.8AB, 21.10, 24.5, 34.1
Cases Cited: Aetna Pacific Securities Ltd v Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Giles J, 29 April 1993, unrep)
Amey v Long (1808) 9 East 473
Anderson v Patersons Securities Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 853
Arhill Pty Ltd v General Terminal Co Pty Ltd (1990) 23 NSWLR 545
Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 250
Barkley v Barkley-Brown [2010] NSWSC 746
Biota Holdings Ltd v Glaxo Group Ltd [2006] VSC 71
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation Ltd [1981] AC 909
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Eubanks for the United States of America (2004) 60 NSWLR 483; [2004] NSWCA 158
Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd v Broadway Plaza Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 410
Elna Australia Pty Ltd v International Computers (Aust) Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 461
Gloucester (Sub-Holdings 1) Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 1419
Gredd v Arpad Busson [2003] EWHC 3001
MacKinnon v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corp [1986] Ch 482; [1986] 1 All ER 653; [1986] 2 WLR…

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 La Valette v Chambers-Grundy

Details

AGLC: La Valette v Chambers-Grundy [2019] NSWSC 1355
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1355
Decision Date: 09 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiff, La Valette, for leave to serve subpoenas and accompanying letters of request in Bermuda, Nevada, Florida, and California for the production of medical records. The defendant, Chambers-Grundy, objected on the grounds that the application was a fishing expedition and that the court lacked jurisdiction to serve subpoenas and letters of request in foreign jurisdictions. The court was required to decide whether the application was a fishing expedition and whether the court had jurisdiction to serve subpoenas and letters of request in foreign jurisdictions.

The court found that the application was not a fishing expedition, as the plaintiff had demonstrated a legitimate need for the documents in question. The court also found that the court had jurisdiction to serve subpoenas and letters of request in foreign jurisdictions, either pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention or the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the documents were relevant to the proceedings and that the jurisdictions in question had either ratified the Hague Evidence Convention or that the court had inherent jurisdiction to serve subpoenas and letters of request. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the production of the documents and that the application was not an abuse of process.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to serve subpoenas and letters of request in Bermuda, Nevada, Florida, and California for the production of medical records. The court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated a legitimate need for the documents in question and that the court had jurisdiction to serve subpoenas and letters of request in foreign jurisdictions. The court found that the application was not a fishing expedition and that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the production of the documents. The court ordered that the plaintiff be granted leave to serve subpoenas and letters of request in the specified jurisdictions.

Orders