Legal Research
Cases
Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim

Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim

Case [2022] WASC 285 31 August 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   MAEK PTY LTD -v- IBRAHIM [2022] WASC 285
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   19 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   31 AUGUST 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2229 of 2020
BETWEEN:   MAEK PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
HIS MAJESTY SULTAN IBRAHIM IBNI ALMARHUM SULTAN ISKANDAR
First Defendant
DAVID HENRY
Second Defendant
HIS MAJESTY SULTAN IBRAHIM IBNI ALMARHUM SULTAN ISKANDAR
Plaintiff by counterclaim
AND
MAEK PTY LTD
Defendant by counterclaim

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure – Discovery – Categories of documents – Case management considerations – Proportionality – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4B, O 4A r 2, O 26 r 7(3)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	S B Nadilo
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	M R Collins

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Lemonis & Tantiprasut Lawyers
First Defendant	:	Hotchkin Hanly
Second Defendant	:	Clyde & Co (Perth Office)

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff by counterclaim	:	No appearance
Defendant by counterclaim	:	S B Nadilo

Solicitors:

Plaintiff by counterclaim	:	Hotchkin Hanly
Defendant by counterclaim	:	Lemonis & Tantiprasut Lawyers

Cases referred to in decision:

Bolitho v Banksia Securities Ltd (No 18) [2021] VSC 666
DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 97
Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Tah Land Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2022] WASC 219

QUINLAN CJ:

Introduction and summary

The plaintiff (MAEK) is a residential builder. These proceedings arise from a contract between MAEK and the first defendant (Sultan Ibrahim) for the construction of a residence in Dalkeith (Contract). MAEK claims that the second defendant (Mr Henry) was appointed as the superintendent under the Contract. Mr Henry denies that he was appointed as the superintendent, although he pleads that he was an employee of the superintendent, NS Projects (NSP).
MAEK makes a number of claims against Sultan Ibrahim, including for damages for breach of contract, damages under the Australian Consumer Law (WA)[1] and declaratory relief. In addition, MAEK brings claims against Mr Henry for damages under the Australian Consumer Law (WA).
[1] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 as applied by the Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA).
This is an application by MAEK for an order for discovery pursuant to O 26 r 7(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Supreme Court Rules) against Mr Henry. MAEK seeks an order that Mr Henry give discovery of five categories of documents (five categories) from a database of documents maintained by NSP (NSP Project File). The NSP Project File contains approximately 29,000 documents.
There is no issue that the five categories are relevant to issues in MAEK's claims in the proceedings. Indeed, Sultan Ibrahim has consented to orders that he give discovery of documents within categories that are relevantly…

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 Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: MAEK Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2013] WASC 78
Case: [2022] WASC 285
Decision Date: 31 AUGUST 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Maek Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Ibrahim, regarding the discovery of certain documents. The plaintiff sought to obtain documents from the defendant in relation to a commercial dispute. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the discovery of specific categories of documents from the defendant. The court was required to balance the plaintiff's right to obtain relevant evidence with the defendant's right to protect confidential information and the proportionality of the discovery request.

The court considered the principles of proportionality and relevance in determining the scope of the discovery. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to discover documents that were relevant to the issues in the case and that the defendant's obligation to provide such documents was not absolute. The court emphasised that the discovery process should be proportionate to the needs of the case and that the plaintiff's request should not be overly broad or burdensome to the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff's request was not disproportionate and that the documents sought were relevant to the issues in the case.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the discovery of the specific categories of documents that it had sought from the defendant. It found that the plaintiff's right to obtain relevant evidence outweighed the defendant's right to protect confidential information in this case. The court also noted that the case turned on its own facts and that each case would need to be considered on its merits. The court ordered the defendant to provide the documents sought by the plaintiff within a specified timeframe.

Orders