Lane v Channel 7 Adelaide Pty Ltd No. Scciv-03-1394

This appeal concerns the defendants' application for further and better discovery from the plaintiffs and non-party discovery from three companies within the Westpac group of companies, which was dismissed by a master. The plaintiffs, who are legal representatives of a former magistrate, are suing the defendants for defamation, claiming they were defamed in a television broadcast. The defendants have pleaded justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege as defences. The defendants sought various documents, including those relating to fees charged by the plaintiffs, the assets of the magistrate, and the knowledge of the plaintiffs of those assets. The defendants argued that these documents were directly relevant to the issues in the defamation proceedings.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the requirements for making an order for further and better discovery under the Supreme Court Rules. The defendants argued that the master erred in refusing their application for further and better discovery. The defendants contended that the documents sought were directly relevant to the issues in the defamation proceedings. However, the master found that there were no grounds for believing that any of the documents or classes of documents sought were, or had been in the possession, custody, or power of the plaintiffs. The master also rejected the assertion that there was value in the plaintiffs being directed to file a supplementary list of documents, setting out when the documents sought were last in their possession, custody, or power and how they came to leave their possession, custody, or power.

The court found that the master was correct in dismissing the defendants' application for further and better discovery. The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated that the documents sought were directly relevant to the issues in the defamation proceedings. The court also found that the defendants had not shown that the documents were, or had been in the possession, custody, or power of the plaintiffs. The court agreed with the master that the application for further discovery could be described as fishing and thus outside the reach of the Supreme Court Rules. The court noted that the intended use of the documents was not clearly identified and that the affidavits before the master did not support the contention that this material was currently in the possession of the plaintiffs. The court also held that it was pointless to require the filing of a supplementary list. The appeal was dismissed.

No orders are made.