CITATION: MINISTER FOR EDUCATION -v- BAILEY [2000] WASCA 377
CORAM: STEYTLER J
PARKER J
HEARD: 24 OCTOBER 2000
DELIVERED : 30 NOVEMBER 2000
FILE NO/S: FUL 45 of 2000
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
Applicant (Defendant)
AND
BRUCE FREDERICK BAILEY Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Appeal - Practice and procedure - Discovery - Whether leave should be given to use discovered document in subsequent proceedings - Implied undertaking against collateral use - Appropriate test for the grant of leave to make use of discovered document in subsequent proceedings - Whether incorrect test applied in court below
Practice and procedure - Discovery - Implied undertaking against collateral use of discovered document - Appropriate test for the grant of leave to make use of discovered document in subsequent proceedings
STEYTLER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of a Master of this Court, given in interlocutory proceedings, in respect of the use which might be made of a discovered document.
The respondent is the plaintiff in an action for damages commenced by him on 17 December 1998 against the applicant, the Western Australian Minister for Education ("the Minister"). In his statement of claim the respondent pleads that he has, since 1994, been employed as the Principal of the…
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 Minister for Education v Bailey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Minister for Education v Bailey [2000] WASCA 377
Case
[2000] WASCA 377
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Minister for Education v Bailey involved an appeal by the Minister for Education, seeking leave to use a document discovered in a previous proceeding in a subsequent proceeding. The court had to determine whether the Minister should be granted leave to use the discovered document in the subsequent proceeding, considering the implied undertaking against the collateral use of discovered documents and the appropriate test for granting such leave.
The central legal issue was whether the test applied by the court below for granting leave to use a discovered document in subsequent proceedings was correct. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the test for granting such leave was properly applied in the circumstances of this case. The court also had to consider whether there was sufficient doubt in the decision of the Master, which warranted granting leave to appeal, and if refusing to grant leave would cause substantial injustice.
The court concluded that it was not persuaded that the decision of the Master was wrong or attended with sufficient doubt to justify granting leave to appeal. The court found no basis to believe that substantial injustice would be done by leaving the decision of the Master unreversed. Therefore, the court refused leave to appeal, aligning with the reasoning provided by Steytler J. Parker J, having considered the draft reasons, respectfully agreed with the conclusion reached by Steytler J.
The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Master and declining to grant the Minister permission to use the discovered document in the subsequent proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
It follows from what I have said above that I am not persuaded that the decision of the learned Master was wrong, or attended with sufficient doubt, to justify the grant of leave. Nor am I satisfied, in all of the circumstances, that substantial injustice would be done by leaving the decision of the learned Master unreversed (as to which see Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 at 54.) I would consequently refuse leave to appeal. PARKER J: I have had the advantage of considering in draft the reasons now published by Steytler J. I respectfully agree that for those reasons, leave to appeal should be refused.