Roach v Page (No 15)

The proceedings arose from a dispute between the parties concerning the construction of an easement in relation to a property. The parties were involved in an interlocutory application, which was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought an order for the defendant to provide records in their possession or control. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the requested records were not subject to the court's order. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court had to determine whether the section applied to an article in a trade journal.

In considering the matter, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including ss 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court noted that the term "records" in s69 was not defined in the Act, and therefore, it was necessary to give the word its ordinary meaning. The court found that the term "records" included documents or writings that contained information, and it could include articles in trade journals. However, the court also noted that the term "records" did not include all publications, and it was necessary to consider the context in which the term was used. The court concluded that the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 was intended to cover documents or writings that contained information that was relevant to the issues in the proceeding.

Based on the court's interpretation of the term "records," the court found that the article in the trade journal was not subject to the order for production. The court held that the article was a publication and not a document or writing that contained information that was relevant to the issues in the proceeding. Therefore, the applicant's application for an order for the production of the article was dismissed. The court further held that the defendant was not required to provide the article in their possession or control.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the application. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the term "records" in s69 of the Evidence Act 1995 and its application to the facts of the case. The court's reasoning and outcome provide guidance to practitioners in relation to the scope of the term "records" in the Evidence Act 1995 and the application of ss 135 and 136.