Lin v Lin - [2003] QSC 177

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lin & Anor v Lin & Ors [2003] QSC 177

PARTIES:

FU-SHUN LIN
(first plaintiff)
PAO-LAN CHANG LIN
(second plaintiff)
v
KONRAD LIN
(first defendant)
MACQUARIE BANK LTD ACN 008 583 542
(second defendant/applicant for production of documents by a non-party)
PAO LIN INVESTMENTS CO PTY LTD
(non-party respondent to application for production of documents)

FILE NO:

SC No 7421 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2003

JUDGE:

Ambrose J

ORDER:

That the non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, upon being provided with copies of all the current pleadings and particulars thereof in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendant, produce to the second defendant within 14 days all the documents coming within the class of the documents specified in UCPR r 242(1)(a), (b) and (c) within its possession, power or control to the same extent as it would be obliged to do if it were a party to this action

The non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, must also comply with the requirements of UCPR r 248(1) and that the second defendant be entitled to make a copy of any document produced pursuant to this order

The costs of this application be the second defendant’s costs in the cause in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendants.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – where the second defendant made an application for the disclosure of documents by the non-party respondent and the application opposed by the non-party respondent on the ground of lack of particularity in the notice whether the non-party respondent should be required t o make such discovery of documents as if it were a party to the proceedings – whether the non-party able to invoke an exercise of a discretion relating to absence of particularity of relevant documents in its possession

Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 82
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 242, r 243, r 244, r 247(3), r 248(1), r 249

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Western Metals ResourcesLtd [2001] 1 Qd R 261
Robson v R E B Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102
Southern Equities Corp Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Anderson & Co (No 5) [2001] SASC 335
Uthmann v Ipswich City Council [1980] 1 Qd R 435

COUNSEL:

A W Duffy for the first and second applicants
P P McQuade for the non-party respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hogan Besley Boyd for the first and second applicants
James Conomos for the non-party respondent

AMBROSE J: This is an application by the second defendant (“Macquarie”) for an order for non-party disclosure and discovery and production of documents by Pao Lin Investments Co Pty Ltd (“Lin Investments”) the non-party respondent to it.

Before descending to consider the arguments advanced by Lin Investments to oppose the application it is convenient to outline very briefly the facts giving…

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 Lin v Lin 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: [2003] QSC 177
Decision Date: 6 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Lin v Lin involved a claim by the second defendant for discovery and inspection of documents held by Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, a non-party respondent. The application was opposed by Pao Lin Investments on the grounds that the notice was not specific enough to warrant the discovery. The court was tasked with determining whether a non-party could exercise its discretion in the absence of a specific request for particular documents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the non-party respondent was required to disclose documents as if it were a party to the proceedings and whether the non-party could invoke a discretion related to the absence of specificity in the request for documents. The court needed to decide if the lack of particularity in the notice was sufficient ground to oppose the discovery request and if the non-party could exercise discretion in such circumstances.

The court found that Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd should produce the requested documents within 14 days to the same extent as if it were a party to the action. The court ruled that the non-party could not rely on the absence of specificity as a basis for withholding documents. The order mandated that Pao Lin Investments comply with the requirements of UCPR r 248(1), which includes making copies of the documents available to the second defendant. The costs of the application were to be borne by the second defendant.

The final orders mandated that Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd produce all relevant documents within 14 days, comply with UCPR r 248(1), and allow the second defendant to make copies of any produced documents. The costs of the application were to be paid by the second defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, upon being provided with copies of all the current pleadings and particulars thereof in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendant, produce to the second defendant within 14 days all the documents coming within the class of the documents specified in UCPR r 242(1)(a), (b) and (c) within its possession, power or control to the same extent as it would be obliged to do if it were a party to this action

The non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, must also comply with the requirements of UCPR r 248(1) and that the second defendant be entitled to make a copy of any document produced pursuant to this order

The costs of this application be the second defendant’s costs in the cause in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendants.

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:	Lin & Anor v Lin & Ors [2003] QSC 177
PARTIES:	FU-SHUN LIN (first plaintiff) PAO-LAN CHANG LIN (second plaintiff) v KONRAD LIN (first defendant) MACQUARIE BANK LTD ACN 008 583 542 (second defendant/applicant for production of documents by a non-party) PAO LIN INVESTMENTS CO PTY LTD (non-party respondent to application for production of documents)
FILE NO:	SC No 7421 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 May 2003
JUDGE:	Ambrose J
ORDER:	That the non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, upon being provided with copies of all the current pleadings and particulars thereof in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendant, produce to the second defendant within 14 days all the documents coming within the class of the documents specified in UCPR r 242(1)(a), (b) and (c) within its possession, power or control to the same extent as it would be obliged to do if it were a party to this action The non-party respondent, Pao Lin Investments Pty Ltd, must also comply with the requirements of UCPR r 248(1) and that the second defendant be entitled to make a copy of any document produced pursuant to this order The costs of this application be the second defendant’s costs in the cause in this action between the plaintiffs and the second defendants.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – where the second defendant made an application for the disclosure of documents by the non-party respondent and the application opposed by the non-party respondent on the ground of lack of particularity in the notice whether the non-party respondent should be required t o make such discovery of documents as if it were a party to the proceedings – whether the non-party able to invoke an exercise of a discretion relating to absence of particularity of relevant documents in its possession Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 82 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 242, r 243, r 244, r 247(3), r 248(1), r 249 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Western Metals ResourcesLtd [2001] 1 Qd R 261 Robson v R E B Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102 Southern Equities Corp Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Anderson & Co (No 5) [2001] SASC 335 Uthmann v Ipswich City Council [1980] 1 Qd R 435
COUNSEL:	A W Duffy for the first and second applicants P P McQuade for the non-party respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hogan Besley Boyd for the first and second applicants James Conomos for the non-party respondent