Roads Corporation v Love (No 5) - [2005] VSC 406

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
VALUATION COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST

No. 6693 of 2004

ROADS CORPORATION	Applicant
v
THOMAS JAMES LOVE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 SEPTEMBER 2005
DATE OF RULING:	17 OCTOBER 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	ROADS CORPORATION v LOVE (No. 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 406

---

Authority to give further and better discovery of specific documents in accordance with the terms of r.29.08 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Costs of previous discovery application –Respondent to pay one half of the authority's costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J. Delany SC with Ms M. Foley	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
For the Respondent	Mr A. Southall QC with Mr D. O’Brien	McCluskys

HIS HONOUR:

Respondents' Application for Discovery

By summons dated 13 September 2005 the respondent seeks orders for further discovery by the applicant authority ("the authority") pursuant to r.29.08 and in the alternative r.29.07 of Chapter 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The respondent seeks discovery of a series of classes of documents and further seeks discovery of certain specific categories of documents.

Rule 29.08(2) provides:

"Where, at any stage of a proceeding, it appears to the Court from evidence or from the nature or circumstances of the case or from any document filed in the proceeding that there are grounds for a belief that some document or class of document relating to any question in the proceeding may be or may have been in the possession of a party, the Court may order that party to make and serve on any other party an affidavit stating whether that document or any and if so what document or documents of that class is or has been in his possession and, if it has been but is no longer in his possession, when he parted with it and his belief as to what has become of it."

The classes of documents sought are as follows:

"1.Pursuant to rule 29.08, alternatively rule 29.07, on or before 14 October 2005, the Applicant make and serve on the Respondent an affidavit stating whether any and if so what documents of the following classes are or have been in the Applicant's possession and, if any document has been but is no longer in the Applicant's possession, when it parted with it and its belief as to what has become of it:
(a)Documents relating to the value of the Respondent's land, including documents relating to any valuation methodology in respect of the Respondent's land;
(b)Documents relating to any assessment of the quality, extent and/or value of the stone resource on the Respondent's land, including documents relating to any valuation methodology in respect of the stone resource on the Respondent's land;
(c)Documents relating to any assessment of the highest and best use of the Respondent's land;
(d)Documents relating to any assessment of the potential compensation payable to the Respondent if the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roads Corporation v Love (No 5) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] VSC 406
Decision Date: 17 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roads Corporation v Love (No 5), the dispute centred around the authority to provide additional and more detailed disclosure of specific documents in line with rule 29.08 of the Supreme Court Rules. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Roads Corporation sought further and more precise disclosure from the Loves, who were the respondents in the proceedings. The Loves contested the authority to give such discovery, arguing that it was not warranted by the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the authority to give further and better discovery was appropriate in this case and, if so, what the terms of such an order should be. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the costs of the previous discovery application should be allocated between the parties and, if so, how they should be apportioned.

The court found that the authority to give further and better discovery was justified, as the documents in question were necessary for the Loves to adequately respond to the allegations made by the Roads Corporation. The court also determined that the costs of the previous discovery application should be divided equally between the parties, with the Loves paying half of the Roads Corporation's costs. The court provided detailed reasoning for these decisions, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles.

The final orders of the court granted the Roads Corporation the authority to provide further and better discovery of the specified documents, with the Loves to bear half of the costs associated with the previous discovery application. This decision provided clarity on the scope of discovery in the case and the financial responsibilities of the parties involved.

Orders