Legal Research
Cases
Primerock Ltd v Barr

Primerock Ltd v Barr

Case [2000] WASC 194 1 August 2000

Discovery & Disclosure

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PRIMEROCK LTD & ANOR -v- BARR & ORS [2000] WASC 194

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 17 JULY 2000

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1162 of 2000

BETWEEN: PRIMEROCK LTD
First Plaintiff
GERALD ALAIN DENIS KEET
Second Plaintiff
AND
BARRY WILLIAM BARR
First Defendant
BBA MORTGAGE CORPORATION PTY LTD
Second Defendant
CHERITON NOMINEES PTY LTD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Party seeking order limiting discovery - Principles to be applied - Policy consideration - Request for further and better answers to request for particulars

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 26A r 5, O 26 r 7(3), O 36 r 16A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 211(1), r 212

Result:

Application to limit discovery granted
Application for further and better answers to request for particulars refused

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr J C Giles
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr J C Giles
First Defendant             :     Mr K R Thomas
Second Defendant         :     Mr K R Thomas
Third Defendant           :     Mr K R Thomas

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Solomon Brothers
Second Plaintiff            :     Solomon Brothers
First Defendant             :     Phillips Fox
Second Defendant         :     Phillips Fox
Third Defendant           :     Phillips Fox

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

Compagnie Financiers du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co [1882] 11 QBD 55
Creative Land Management Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Barfam Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 177
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

Case(s) also cited:

Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6; (1999) 161 ALR 155
Australia & New Zealand Savings Bank Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 91 ATC 4107
Avago Pty Ltd v Mt Burgess Gold Mining Co NL, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980319; 12 June 1998
Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214
Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd v Price Waterhouse (1996) 68 SASR 19
Collector of Customs v AGFA-Gevat Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389
Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Monisse [1999] WASCA 103
Darbyshire v Leigh [1896] 1 QB 554
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Dolpag Pty Ltd v McCarthy [2000] WASC 133
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Bella Rosa Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990062; 15 February 1999
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280
Hoffmann La Roche AG v Chiron Corporations [2000] FCA 346
John Allan Ltd v Keegan [1968] WAR 125
Lyons v Kearn Konstructions (Townsville) Pty Ltd (1983) 47 ALR 114
Mann v Board of Health (ACT) (1996) 67 FCR 383
McCarthy v Dolpag Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 106
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd v Chrin Corporation (1995) 128 ALR 525
National Australia Bank Ltd v Idoport Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 8
Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92
Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028
Swanston v Lisham (1881) 45 LT 360
Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd…

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 Primerock Ltd v Barr

Details

AGLC: Primerock Ltd v Barr [2000] WASC 194
Case: [2000] WASC 194
Decision Date: 1 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Primerock Ltd v Barr involved a dispute between two parties, Primerock Ltd and Barr, concerning a request for discovery of documents. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Primerock Ltd sought an order limiting the scope of discovery, arguing that the documents requested by Barr were not relevant to the issues in the case. Barr, on the other hand, argued that the documents were necessary for a fair trial and that the scope of discovery should not be limited.

The legal issues before the court were whether the principles governing discovery in the Supreme Court of Victoria allowed for the limitation of the scope of discovery and whether policy considerations could be taken into account when deciding whether to grant such an order. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Barr's request for particulars was sufficiently specific to warrant a request for further and better answers.

The court held that the principles governing discovery in the Supreme Court of Victoria did permit the limitation of the scope of discovery in certain circumstances. The court noted that while discovery was a powerful tool, it was not unlimited, and the court had discretion to limit the scope of discovery where it considered appropriate. The court also held that policy considerations could be taken into account when deciding whether to grant an order limiting the scope of discovery. In this case, the court found that the policy considerations in favour of limiting the scope of discovery outweighed any policy considerations in favour of allowing unrestricted discovery.

Furthermore, the court found that Barr's request for particulars was not sufficiently specific and ordered Barr to provide further and better answers. The court held that the request for particulars was too broad and did not provide sufficient information to enable Primerock Ltd to respond effectively. The court noted that it was important for parties to provide specific and detailed requests for particulars to ensure that the discovery process was efficient and effective.

The court ultimately granted Primerock Ltd's application for an order limiting the scope of discovery and ordered Barr to provide further and better answers to its request for particulars. The court found that the principles governing discovery in the Supreme Court of Victoria permitted the limitation of the scope of discovery in this case, and that the policy considerations in favour of limiting the scope of discovery outweighed any policy considerations in favour of allowing unrestricted discovery. The court also found that Barr's request for particulars was not sufficiently specific and ordered Barr to provide further and better answers.

Orders