JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2018
DATE OF RULING:	1 May 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rich v Ryan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 201

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL — Practice and procedure — Discovery — Application for discovery in judicial review proceeding — Whether plaintiff has a good, or at least an arguable case, proof of which would be aided by discovery—Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 29.01(1), 29.01.1(1), 29.07 —Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss 54, 55 — Australian Society for Kangaroos Inc. v Secretary, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning [2018] VSC 88 — Moreland City Council v Minister for Planning [2014] VSC 468 — Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Defendant	Ms Sarala Fitzgerald	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr Hugo Rich, is imprisoned at Barwon Prison. The defendant, Mr Brett Ryan, manages Barwon Prison and is an employee of Corrections Victoria. Mr Rich has brought this proceeding seeking judicial review of decisions regarding his access to electronic equipment whilst he is imprisoned. He also seeks review of a decision he says was not made to approve monies for stationery expenditure.

For convenience, a reference to ‘Corrections Victoria’ in this ruling is a reference to the defendant.

On 24 January 2018, Mr Rich filed a draft notice seeking discovery from Corrections Victoria of 23 categories of documents, and a summons for discovery and inspection of documents. Corrections Victoria opposes the application.

In judicial review proceedings, the presumption is against discovery. Mr Rich seeks that the Court exercise its discretion to order otherwise, that is, for discovery. The 23 categories of documents that Mr Rich seeks Corrections Victoria discover are contained in Schedule 1 to this ruling.

The issue for determination in this ruling is whether or not Corrections Victoria should be ordered to discover any or all of those documents. This raises two questions, which I have answered as follows:

1. Does Mr Rich have a good, or at least arguable case? No.

2. Are there special circumstances so as to warrant an order for discovery? No.

Orders will therefore be made dismissing Mr Rich’s application for discovery.

Affidavits and submissions

Mr Rich relies upon his affidavits affirmed on 5 October 2017 (‘the first Rich affidavit’), 9 January 2018 (‘the second Rich affidavit’), and 23 February 2018 (‘the third Rich affidavit’).[1] Mr Rich also made written submissions dated 10 January 2018. His written submissions together with his second and third affidavits, which are in the nature of submissions, total 59 pages.
[1]A copy of this affidavit was placed on the court file but the affidavit has…

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 Rich v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Rich v Ryan [2018] VSC 201
Case: [2018] VSC 201
Decision Date: 1 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rich v Ryan is a judicial review case involving a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff sought discovery in the judicial review proceeding, which was contested by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the discovery was necessary to establish a good or at least an arguable case, which would be aided by the discovery.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had a good or arguable case that would be aided by the discovery and if the court had the discretion to order discovery in a judicial review proceeding. The court considered relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, the Civil Procedure Act 2010, and relevant case law, including Australian Society for Kangaroos Inc. v Secretary, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and Moreland City Council v Minister for Planning.

The court held that the plaintiff had not established a good or arguable case that would be aided by the discovery. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were speculative and did not provide sufficient evidence to support the need for discovery. The court also held that it did not have the discretion to order discovery in a judicial review proceeding, as the relevant legislation and case law did not support such an order. The application for discovery was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the application for discovery. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, and the defendant was not required to provide the discovery sought by the plaintiff.

Orders