Rann v Olsen No. Scgrg-97-913 Judgment No. S237 - [1999] SASC 237

RANN V OLSEN

[1999] SASC 237

JUDGE BURLEY. By application dated 14 October 1998 the defendant seeks the following order:-
“1..... That the plaintiff be required to attend before the Court for cross examination on the affidavits sworn by him on 17 and 24 September 1998.”
The application is made pursuant to SCR 58.04A(1) which is as follows:-
“The Court may at any time order that the deponent to an affidavit filed under Rule 58.04(e) either answer written interrogatories and/or attend before the Court for cross-examination on the affidavit where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such deponent, or a party for whom he has made the affidavit, has not made full and proper discovery of documents in the proceedings.”
Sub-rule (3) of that rule is as follows:-
“The Court may discharge an order made under sub-rule (1) above if before the interrogatories are answered or the cross-examination occurs the party against whom the order has been made files a further affidavit making full and proper discovery of documents.”
It would seem to me, a fortiori, that if a further affidavit by the party required to give discovery is filed after the application for leave to cross-examine has been made, and if the combination of affidavits is sufficient, the Court would decline to give leave to the applicant to cross-examine the relevant deponent.
The plaintiff has made an application for further and better discovery pursuant to SCR 58.04(e). Part of that application may be material to the defendant’s application for leave to cross-examine. The relevant part is as follows:-
“1..... That the defendant give further and better discovery of -
...
(iii).. of [sic] the documents pertaining to the $1.5 billion water and sewerage outsourcing contract tabled by the defendant in the House of Assembly on 4 February 1997 and the documents described by the defendant in the House on that day as being ‘the personal file of the former chief of staff of [former Premier Brown]’.”

In broad terms, the interrelationship between the two applications is that, on the defendant’s application, the whereabouts of certain documents and the statements made by the plaintiff in relation thereto are crucial and, on the plaintiff’s application, his ability to state the whereabouts of the relevant documentation might be assisted if the defendant gives the further and better discovery sought.
The plaintiff’s application follows upon an order made by me on 4 September 1998 which is as follows:-
“That within 14 days the plaintiff file and serve an affidavit in accordance with the requirements of Rule 58.04(e)(i) in relation to the categories of documentation referred to in paragraph 2 of the application by Doc 17.”
Paragraph 2 of the application by Document 17 is as follows:-
“2..... That the plaintiff give further and better discovery of Cabinet submissions, documents from Cabinet sub-committees, Crown Law documents and the contract relating to the $1.5 billion water and sewerage outsourcing contract referred to in the evidence given by the plaintiff…

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 Rann v Olsen No. Scgrg-97-913 Judgment No. S237

Details

AGLC: Rann v Olsen No. Scgrg-97-913 Judgment No. S237 [1999] SASC 237
Case: [1999] SASC 237
Decision Date: 11 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rann v Olsen involves a defamation action where the plaintiff, Rann, claims damages against the defendant, Olsen, for defamatory statements made during media conferences. Olsen has applied for leave to cross-examine Rann based on concerns about the adequacy of discovery provided by Rann. Rann has also applied for further and better discovery, specifically regarding documents related to a $1.5 billion water and sewerage outsourcing contract and the personal file of a former chief of staff. The court must determine whether Olsen is entitled to cross-examine Rann and whether Rann is entitled to further and better discovery. The court found that while there were uncertainties regarding the documents in question, these were matters to be resolved at trial rather than through cross-examination. The court also found that Rann's belief that certain documents tabled in Parliament were the same as those he had received was sufficient to warrant discovery of those documents. The court denied Olsen's application for leave to cross-examine Rann but ordered Olsen to provide an affidavit regarding the documents in question. Regarding Rann's application for further and better discovery, the court denied the request for documents related to donations and negotiations with Electronic Data Systems (EDS) but ordered Olsen to provide an affidavit regarding documents related to inquiries into the leaking of the water and sewerage outsourcing contract and the EDS contract.

Orders