Raynor v Woodall - [2021] WADC 46

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RAYNOR -v- WOODALL [2021] WADC 46
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT
HEARD:   12 MAY 2021
DELIVERED          :   27 MAY 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3185 of 2015
BETWEEN:   KAREN RAYNOR
First Plaintiff

BRIAN RAYNOR
Second Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL WOODALL
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for further and better discovery - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 46
Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA), O 26 r 2 and r 6

Result:

Discovery of some matters ordered, the application in respect of two nominated companies adjourned sine die and the balance dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr J R Johnson
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr J R Johnson
Defendant	:	Mr M Williams

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Julian Johnson Lawyers
Second Plaintiff	:	Julian Johnson Lawyers
Defendant	:	Minter Ellison

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

Pollard v Endale Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WADC 97

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

By writ of summons filed on 3 September 2015, the first and second plaintiffs sought damages against the defendant who is a specialist psychiatrist in relation to the advice, care and treatment which he provided to the first plaintiff whilst his patient which it is alleged caused personal injury, loss and damage and loss and damage to the second plaintiff, her husband.
The application with which I am required to deal is that brought by the defendant seeking further and better discovery of various identified classes of document set out in the body of the summons. Those documents are as follows with regard to the first plaintiff:
1.Within 21 days of the date of this order, the first plaintiff do make and file an affidavit stating whether the following classes of documents are or have at any time been in her possession, custody or power and if not then in her possession, custody or power when she parted with them and what has become of them and that she do within the same period serve a copy thereof on the defendant:
(a)all emails sent by the first plaintiff to Jane Fitch or anyone at Jane Fitch's practice;
(b)all documents/files attached to every email that the first plaintiff sent to Jane Fitch or anyone at Jane Fitch's practice;
(c)all diaries, notes or other records made by the first plaintiff regarding her consultations, discussions and interactions with the defendant;
(d)all diaries, notes or other records made by the first plaintiff about:
(i)her psychiatric symptoms;
(ii)any stressors in her life (including but not limited to marital problems, conflict with family members or conflict with co-workers);
(iii)her enjoyment of life;
(iv)her decision to stop working;
(v)her decision to relocate her primary residence to Myelup;
(vi)any medical or psychological treatment she was receiving at any time from January 2008 to date;
(vii)any medication she was taking any time from January 2008 to date;
(e)all emails the first plaintiff has sent to anyone, including but not limited to the second 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 Raynor v Woodall

Details

AGLC: Raynor v Woodall [2021] WADC 46
Case: [2021] WADC 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raynor v Woodall [2021] WADC 46 involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Karen Raynor and Brian Raynor, and the defendant, Michael Woodall, a specialist psychiatrist. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant in relation to advice, care, and treatment provided to Karen, which they alleged caused personal injury, loss, and damage to her and her husband, Brian. The defendant sought further and better discovery of various classes of documents from both plaintiffs, including emails, diaries, notes, tax returns, and financial statements.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had provided reasonable grounds for being fairly certain that other documents ought to have been disclosed, and whether it was practically certain that the plaintiffs had misconceived their case and would have disclosed further documents if they had acted upon a proper view of the law. The court considered the obligation to give discovery under the District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 46, and the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA), O 26 r 6.

Deputy Registrar Hewitt found that the scope of the documents sought by the defendant was excessively broad and in some cases, related to aspects of the plaintiffs' lives that were entirely irrelevant to the litigation. The court held that it was not its task to reframe the order sought within the summons to salvage an application that was poorly framed. The court found that the defendant had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the documents existed and contained relevant information. However, the court did order the first plaintiff to discover her tax returns and documentation provided to her tax agents as they were likely to shed light on her earnings and the rates adopted in calculating her loss. The court also directed that subpoenas should be issued to the relevant companies for the discovery of their tax returns and financial statements, and adjourned the application in respect of these companies sine die, allowing the defendant to resurrect the application if there were any issues with the subpoena process.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for further and better discovery in most respects but ordered the first plaintiff to discover her tax returns and documentation provided to her tax agents. The application in respect of the two nominated companies was adjourned sine die. This decision highlights the importance of framing discovery applications in a manner that is reasonable and focused on the specific issues in the litigation, and the court's reluctance to order discovery that would impose an oppressive burden on a party.

Orders