Owen v Barclays Bank Plc - [2010] NSWSC 1225

CITATION: Owen v Barclays Bank Plc [2010] NSWSC 1225

HEARING DATE(S): 30 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 October 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hislop J

DECISION: 1. The defendant is to produce for inspection by the plaintiff’s legal advisers the six volumes of documents forwarded to them under cover of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter dated 16 December 2008 by 5 November 2010.
2. The plaintiff is to inform the defendant of any documents in the six volumes which she submits are discoverable and the category or categories within which they fall by 12 November 2010.
3. The defendant is to provide discovery with verification of all discoverable documents which have not been the subject of earlier verified discovery by 26 November 2010.
4. Liberty to the parties to apply on three days notice.
5. Costs reserved.
6. The proceedings be listed for directions before the registrar on 3 December 2010.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - employment contract - discovery of documents.

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Procter v Kalivis [2009] FCA 1518, (2009) 263 ALR 461

PARTIES: Caroline Marie Owen (Plaintiff)
Barclays Bank Plc (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/289392

COUNSEL: C. Ronalds SC (Plaintiff)
N. Manasouridis (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Norton Rose (Plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HISLOP J

Friday 29 October 2010

2008/289392 CAROLINE MARIE OWEN v BARCLAYS BANK PIC

JUDGMENT
Introduction

1 The plaintiff was employed as an executive by the defendant. Her employment commenced on 16 May 2006 and was terminated on 22 May 2008.

2 By statement of claim filed in this court in June 2008 the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant for various breaches of the employment contract. Her claim is disputed by the defendant.

3 Differences have arisen between the parties as to whether adequate discovery of documents has been given by the defendant. Despite attempts to resolve the dispute, substantial differences remain. This has resulted in the plaintiff, by a further amended notice of motion filed on 27 September 2010, seeking orders for discovery, and further discovery, of various categories of documents and for leave to cross examine the deponents of two affidavits of discovery previously filed. It is that motion which is the subject of the present hearing.

Background

4 By a consent order dated 1 December 2008 the parties were required to give discovery in categories. The plaintiff forwarded to the defendant its list of categories dated 9 February 2009. The defendant, by letter dated 9 March 2009, objected to some of those categories. There was no response by the plaintiff to that letter. The defendant gave discovery in May 2009 in the absence of resolution of that issue.

5 On 19 March 2010 the defendant was ordered, by consent, to file and serve a supplementary list of documents giving discovery of the categories of documents described in a notice of motion filed on 10 August 2009 excluding categories 15, 91 and 94.

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 Owen v Barclays Bank Plc 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: [2010] NSWSC 1225
Decision Date: 29 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Owen v Barclays Bank Plc involved a dispute over the discovery of documents related to an employment contract. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a broader scope of discovery than what had been initially granted by the defendant.

The central legal question was whether the court should expand the scope of the discovery order to include documents that the plaintiff believed were relevant to the employment contract dispute. The court was required to balance the plaintiff's right to access necessary documents against the defendant's concerns about privacy and the potential for disclosing privileged information. The court also needed to consider the relevance and proportionality of the requested documents.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an expansion of the discovery order. The judge held that while the plaintiff had a right to discover documents relevant to the employment contract, this right was not unlimited. The court emphasised that the scope of discovery must be carefully considered to avoid unnecessary invasion of privacy and to protect against the disclosure of privileged information. The judge concluded that the plaintiff had not provided adequate justification for the requested broader discovery and therefore denied the application.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was not granted the additional discovery sought. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of proportionality and relevance in determining the scope of discovery in employment contract disputes. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances presented in this case and did not set a broad precedent for similar cases.

Orders