Mishpocha Pty Ltd v Tyrepower Marketing (Qld) Limited (No 2)

In the case of Mishpocha Pty Ltd v Tyrepower Marketing (Qld) Limited (No 2), Mishpocha Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought an order for the disclosure of documents held by Tyrepower Marketing (Qld) Limited and Tyrepower Marketing (Qld) Pty Ltd, the defendants, pursuant to r 223(1) or, in the alternative, r 223(3) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The application was made on the basis that the duty of disclosure applied to the documents, while the defendants resisted on the basis that it did not. The plaintiff argued that the requested documents were directly relevant to the allegations in issue, as required by r 211 of the same rules.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the documents sought by the plaintiff were directly relevant to the allegations in issue, and thus subject to the duty of disclosure under r 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court considered the differences between r 223(1) and r 223(3) of the rules, with r 223(1) applying to documents that are directly relevant to an allegation in issue, and r 223(3) applying to documents that are relevant to an allegation in issue but not directly relevant. The court found that the documents in question were indeed directly relevant to the allegations in issue, and thus subject to the duty of disclosure under r 223(1) of the rules.

The court ordered that the defendants produce to the plaintiff within seven days of the order copies of the register of members of each defendant and the memorandum and articles of association of the second defendant. The court also granted liberty to apply for further orders and scheduled a hearing to determine the costs of the application. The parties were directed to appear at 10am on 17 September 2021, with out-of-town parties having leave to appear by telephone or video link.