O'Malley Nominees Pty Ltd v Shawtec Pty Ltd

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   O'MALLEY NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- SHAWTEC PTY LTD & ORS [2010] WADC 62

CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING

HEARD:   7 APRIL 2010

DELIVERED          :   Delivered Extemporaneously on 7 APRIL 2010 typed from tape and edited by Principal Registrar

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1163 of 2004

BETWEEN:   O'MALLEY NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 782 821)

Plaintiff

AND

SHAWTEC PTY LTD (ACN 070 514 966)
First Defendant

MICHAEL JOHN SHAW
LAURENCE DAVID SHAW
Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Further and better discovery

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application declined

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr A J N Aristei

First Defendant             :     Mr A R MacPherson

Second Defendants       :     Mr A R MacPherson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Irwin Legal

First Defendant             :     Hotchkin Hanly

Second Defendants       :     Hotchkin Hanly

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Railroad Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Rowan & Anor [2004] WASC 165

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658

Lagouvardis v Brett & Janet Cottee Pty Ltd BC9402842 (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division, Young J, 3 August 1994)

O'Malley Nominees Pty Ltd v Shawtec Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] WADC 171

O'Malley Nominees Pty Ltd v Shawtec Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] WADC 2

Pollard v Endale Pty Ltd [2009] WADC 97

1. PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING:  The application before me is an application by the plaintiff by chamber summons dated 23 November 2009 for further and better discovery.  The plaintiff seeks particular discovery of three groups of documents.  In relation to the documents set out in par 1(a) and par 1(b) of the application, the plaintiff requests me to adjourn that part of the application.  I will return to those documents at the end of these reasons.

2. The documents the subject of the contested hearing before me are at par 1(c) of the application.  That application reads as follows:

   "c)Any correspondence or documents relating to the First Defendant's loan application that resulted in its receipt of a loan that was used to purchase its property situated at 143 Francisco Street, Belmont on or about 3 October 2003, as referred to in the supporting affidavit of Mr. Goldthorpe filed herewith, including:

   i)any loan application (including any correspondence or documents sent by the Defendants or either of them to the lender or its servants or agents and any correspondence or documents sent by the lender or its servants or agents to the Defendants or either of them);

   ii)any correspondence or documents pertaining to the loan application;

   iii)any letters of approval from the lender to the Defendants or either of them;

   iv)any correspondence or documents pertaining to the settlement of the purchase of 143 Francisco Street, Belmont; and

   v)any document authorising the Defendants to have early possession of 143 Francisco Street, Belmont prior to 1 July 2003 which enabled the Defendant to obtain Transfer of Land dated 9 May 2003 and obtain authority to transfer its operations to…