Legal Research
Cases
Sayour v Elliott

Sayour v Elliott

Case [2017] NSWSC 713 6 June 2017

Discovery & Disclosure

Jurisdiction

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Sayour v Elliot [2017] NSWSC 713
Hearing dates: 26 April 2017
Decision date: 06 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
(1) Order the plaintiffs within 21 days to answer the request for particulars contained in the following paragraphs of the first defendant’s revised request for particulars issued on 5 May 2017 (as indicated in the reasons for judgment on the present applications): 7, 9, 11, 12-22, 28, 29(a), 30, 31(a), 32, 34-39; as well as the particulars referred to at [85] of these reasons.
(2) Set aside the notice to produce addressed to Ms Yesmine Sayour but direct the plaintiffs to produce within 21 days email communications on Jamil’s work email account with Biomed Australia Technology between Mr Deiri and Jamil in relation to payments made to or received by Jamil from Mr Deiri or Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd or out of any partnership account between Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd and Broadway Plaza Pty Ltd, from November 2014 to October 2015.
(3) Order the first defendant to produce within 21 days: (a) the documents identified in category [1] of the plaintiffs’ notice to produce issued on 21 March 2017, limited as indicated in these reasons for judgment, and (b) (in a sealed envelope access to which is not to be granted to the plaintiffs without further order) the documents sought in categories [4] and [5] of that notice to produce (again, limited as indicated in these reasons).
(4) Otherwise set aside the plaintiffs’ notice to produce issued on 21 March 2017.
(5) List the matter before me at 9.30am on 28 June 2017 for further directions including as to listing for hearing the balance of the first defendants’ notice of motion filed 17 March 2017, and/or the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, if either is pressed.
(6) Each party pay her, his or its own costs of the applications heard on 26 April 2017.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for particulars – whether plaintiff should provide further particulars
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – objection as to production of documents under various notices to produce
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 59
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 118, 119
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 47
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 15.1, 21.10
Cases Cited: Alesco Corporation Ltd v Te Maari [2015] NSWSC 469
Azzi v Volvo [2006] NSWSC 283
Bailey v Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214
Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697
Chapple v Electrical Trades Union [1961] 3 All ER 612
Collier v Country Women’s Association of New South Wales [2016] NSWSC 1361
Collier v Country Women’s Association of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 22
Dalleagles Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 6 ACSR 498
Ex parte Kingston; re Gross (1871) LR 6 Ch App 632
Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 486; [2012] HCA 39

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 Sayour v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Sayour v Elliott [2017] NSWSC 713
Case: [2017] NSWSC 713
Decision Date: 06 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sayour v Elliott involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Sayour, and the defendant, Elliott, concerning the provision of particulars and objections to the production of documents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Sayour sought damages for breach of contract and sought particulars from Elliott to clarify the specifics of the alleged breach. Additionally, Sayour sought documents under various notices to produce, which Elliott objected to on several grounds.

The legal issues before the court included whether Sayour was required to provide further particulars and whether Elliott's objections to the production of documents were valid. The court had to determine whether the particulars provided by Sayour were sufficient for Elliott to frame a defence, and if not, what further information was required. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the validity of Elliott's objections, including whether the objections were justified and whether they were made in a timely manner.

The court held that Sayour was not required to provide further particulars as the information already provided was sufficient for Elliott to frame a defence. The court found that the particulars were adequate for Elliott to understand the nature of the claim and prepare a defence. Regarding the objections to the production of documents, the court found that some of Elliott's objections were valid while others were not. The court ordered that the documents subject to valid objections were not to be produced, but directed that the remaining documents be provided to Sayour. The court emphasised the importance of timely objections and the need for objections to be specific and justified.

The court's final orders included that Sayour was not required to provide further particulars and that certain objections to the production of documents were upheld. The court directed that the remaining documents be produced within a specified timeframe. The case highlights the importance of providing sufficient particulars and the need for objections to the production of documents to be both timely and well-founded.

Orders