Shakil v Goyal

Shakil v Goyal involved a dispute between Shakil and Goyal, which included issues concerning discovery of documents and associated costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was over the scope and relevance of the documents to be disclosed in the discovery process, particularly those related to financial transactions and migration services. The plaintiff sought a broad range of documents, while the cross-claimant argued for a more limited scope, contending that many of the requested documents were irrelevant or overly burdensome.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's request for discovery was reasonable and whether the cross-claimant's objections to certain categories of documents were justified. The court examined the relevance of the documents to the issues in dispute and whether the burden of producing them was disproportionate. Additionally, the court had to assess the appropriate costs to be awarded in relation to the discovery process.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's request for discovery was indeed wide-ranging, but the cross-claimant had not adequately justified the objection to many of the categories. The court directed the cross-claimant to provide a list of individuals from whom they had received payments for migration services over a specified period. It also ordered the plaintiff to provide discovery of specific categories of documents, including tax returns and documents related to payments and fees. The court emphasised that the term "document" included both hard copies and electronic records and that the documents must be in their final form. Furthermore, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be borne by the parties, with certain exceptions regarding the drafting of document categories.

The final orders included directives for the cross-claimant to prepare a list of relevant persons and for the plaintiff to provide specific documents. The court also mandated a formal mediation in May 2016 and scheduled a hearing for August 2016. The orders also outlined the scope of "document" and set the costs for the discovery process, with specific exceptions noted.