Sadie Ville Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (No 5)

Sadie Ville Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (DTT) seeking damages for professional negligence. The central issue in the case was the production of certain documents. Specifically, a partner of DTT, Mr Saayman, had obtained and encrypted relevant documents and was refusing to make them available to other partners. This situation led to an application by the other partners (the Uninvolved Partners) to be excused from complying with a production order or for the order to be discharged.

The court was required to determine whether the Uninvolved Partners should be excused from complying with the production order or whether the order should be discharged. The Uninvolved Partners argued that they were unable to produce the documents due to Mr Saayman's actions. The court considered the evidence provided by the Uninvolved Partners, including affidavits and documentary evidence, but found that the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and encryption of the documents were not sufficiently explained. The court noted that the Uninvolved Partners had not made inquiries into how the documents were obtained or when the encryption occurred.

The court concluded that the Uninvolved Partners had not demonstrated that they were unable to produce the documents. The circumstances appeared to have been designed to create a situation where the Uninvolved Partners could argue that they were unable to comply with the production order. Given the lack of explanation and investigation into how the documents were obtained, the court dismissed the application for relief from the production order and discharged the stay on the order. The court ordered that the production order be varied to extend the compliance date and gave the parties an opportunity to submit written costs submissions. The court also set a deadline for any application for leave to appeal the orders.