Legal Research
Cases
Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons

Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons

Link copied

Case Copied 19 August 2009 11 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869

HEARING DATE(S): 18/08/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 August 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Notice under rule 21.10 set aside. Return date appointed for limited notice under rule 34.1.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - notice to produce - differences between notice under rule 21.10 requiring production to the party and notice under rule 34.1 requiring production to the court - need in the first case for "specific document" to be "clearly defined" - individual document must be sought - wider scope of rule 34.1 contrasted

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459G
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rules 21.10, 33.3(4)(a), 34.1,

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Douglas Corporation v Currico Nominees [2007] NSWSC 113
Lane v Registrar of the Supreme Court [1981] HCA 35; (1981) 148 CLR 245
Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296
Penrith Rugby League Club Limited v Brown [2004] NSWSC 1182

PARTIES: Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
John Howard Lyons, Rosebanner Pty Ltd and Australian Hotels Limited - Defendants

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2769/09

COUNSEL: Mr R M Lovas - Plaintiff
Mr J B Simpkins SC - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Angela M Frost - Plaintiff
Legal Ease Lawyers - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY 19 AUGUST 2009

2769/09 PATONGA BEACH HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED v JOHN HOWARD LYONS & 2 ORS

JUDGMENT

1 I am dealing with the plaintiff's interlocutory process filed on 12 August 2009 in these proceedings brought under s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of a statutory demand served on the plaintiff by the defendants.

2 The interlocutory process relates to a notice to produce served by the defendants on the plaintiff pursuant to rule 21.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. That notice, by its terms, requires the plaintiff to produce for inspection to the defendants documents described in its paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 as follows:

“1. Any dealing or agreement concerning the unregistered leasehold to Colo Investments Limited of the premises situated in Vanuatu being leasehold title number 11/OD22/069 located at Rue de Paris, Port Vila, Vanuatu.

2. Any dealing being a transfer or assignment of the leasehold estate of the premises situated in Vanuatu being leasehold title number 11/OD22/069 located at Rue de Paris, Port Vila, Vanuatu from Club Vanuatu Limited to any party other than Colo Investments Limited.

3. Any documents establishing Robert Osborne as the sole beneficial interest holder in Colo Investments Limited and Lakehouse Investments Limited.”

3 At an early stage of the hearing of the interlocutory process, Mr Simpkins SC, who appeared for the defendants, foreshadowed an application for the fixing of a return date for a notice under rule 34.1 requiring the plaintiff to produce to the court documents of the descriptions 1, 2 and 3 in the existing notice under rule 21.10. Argument…

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 Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons 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: [2009] NSWSC 869
Decision Date: 19 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of rules under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (NSW). Specifically, the case focused on the differences between a notice to produce under rule 21.10 and a notice to produce under rule 34.1. The dispute arose when Patonga Beach Holdings sought specific documents from Lyons, and Lyons contended that the notice was unclear and overbroad. The court was required to determine the scope and requirements of each notice to produce and whether the notice issued by Patonga Beach Holdings complied with the relevant rules.

The court considered the precise language of the rules and the purpose behind each notice to produce. It examined the requirement for a notice under rule 21.10 to clearly define a "specific document" and contrasted it with the broader scope permitted under rule 34.1. The court highlighted that rule 21.10 mandates that an individual document be specifically identified, whereas rule 34.1 allows for a wider scope of documents to be produced to the court. The court's task was to determine whether the notice issued by Patonga Beach Holdings met the specificity requirement of rule 21.10 or whether it should be assessed under the broader parameters of rule 34.1.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the notice issued by Patonga Beach Holdings did not meet the specificity required by rule 21.10, as it did not clearly define a "specific document." Instead, the notice was more aligned with the broader scope permitted by rule 34.1. The court emphasised that for a notice to produce under rule 21.10 to be valid, it must seek an individual document with precision, and any ambiguity could render the notice ineffective. The court concluded that the notice in question was too broad and failed to meet the specificity requirement of rule 21.10.

The court ordered that the notice to produce issued by Patonga Beach Holdings be deemed invalid to the extent it sought documents under rule 21.10. The court directed that the matter proceed under the parameters of rule 34.1, allowing for a broader scope of document production. The court also ordered that Patonga Beach Holdings provide a revised notice that clearly defined the specific documents sought, in accordance with the requirements of rule 21.10.

Orders