CITATION: SHORT & ANOR. V CRAWLEY & ORS [2000] NSWSC 1059 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2824/98 HEARING DATE(S): 15/11/00 JUDGMENT DATE: 15 November 2000 PARTIES :
Warwick Short - 1sr plaintiff
Nabutu Pty. Limited - 2nd plaintiff
Christopher Crawley - 1st defendant
Marisco Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 2nd defendant
J & J O'Brien Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 3rd defendant
Vensel Pty. Limited - 4th defendant
Trudale Pty. Limited - 5th defendant
Judith Kiralyhidi Crawley - 6th defendantJUDGMENT OF: Hodgson CJinEq at 1
COUNSEL : Mr. M. Cashion SC for plaintiffs
Mr. A. Sullivan QC with Mr. Dodson for defendantsSOLICITORS: Kemp Strang, Sydney for plaintiffs
Blake Dawson Waldron, Sydney for defendantsCATCHWORDS: COSTS - PROCEDURE - Discovery and inspection - Documents returned to discovering party in form and order requiring significant restoration - Order for costs thrown away. DECISION: See end of judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISIONCORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.
Wednesday 15th November 2000
NO. 2824 OF 1998
SHORT & ANOR. V. CRAWLEY & ORS.JUDGMENT
1 I have now heard evidence and argument in relation to the second order sought in the Notice of Motion of the defendants filed on 24th October 2000. The defendants seek an order that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of restoring the defendants’ documents to the form and order in which they were made available, on an indemnity basis 2 It does seem clear that the defendants’ documents were returned to the defendants in a form and order which will require some significant time to deal with. It is accepted on behalf of the plaintiffs that discovered documents should be returned after inspection substantially in the form and order in which they were provided, and that if there is any significant departure from that which causes significant expense to the other party, then the party responsible for that disruption should bear the costs of restoration. 3 However, it seems to me that some of the work done in restoring the files will not be entirely wasted. It will, in all probability, advance the preparation of the case. For that reason, it seems to me that the appropriate order to make is that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs thrown away by reason of the defendants’ discovered documents being returned in a form and order different from that in which they were made available. It should be possible for the trial judge to give some further directions in relation to how those costs are to be assessed, because it should be possible by then to make a more accurate assessment of the extent of costs actually thrown away, and not usefully incurred in the preparation of the case. 4 Mr. Sullivan QC seeks an order that the costs be on an indemnity basis. He submitted that the defendants should not be disadvantaged because of abuse of the process of discovery by the plaintiffs, and should not be disadvantaged because the plaintiffs had…
Details
- AGLC
- Short and ANOR. v Crawley [2000] NSWSC 1059
- Case
- [2000] NSWSC 1059
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Short and ANOR. v Crawley, the matter was heard before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved the process of discovery and inspection of documents, specifically focusing on the circumstances where documents were returned in a form that required significant restoration by the discovering party. The primary issue before the court was whether the costs incurred due to the inadequate return of documents could be recovered.
The legal question centred on whether the respondent, Crawley, was entitled to recover costs because the appellant had returned documents in a manner that necessitated considerable restoration, thereby causing additional work for the discovering party. The court needed to determine whether the respondent's costs could be considered wasted and, if so, whether these costs were recoverable under the rules governing discovery and inspection procedures.
The court found that the appellant's actions in returning the documents had indeed caused significant additional work for the respondent, amounting to wasted costs. The court held that the respondent was entitled to recover these costs as they were directly attributable to the appellant's failure to return the documents in an appropriate form. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the proper procedures in the discovery and inspection process to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. Consequently, the order was made that the costs thrown away by the respondent were to be recovered from the appellant.
The legal question centred on whether the respondent, Crawley, was entitled to recover costs because the appellant had returned documents in a manner that necessitated considerable restoration, thereby causing additional work for the discovering party. The court needed to determine whether the respondent's costs could be considered wasted and, if so, whether these costs were recoverable under the rules governing discovery and inspection procedures.
The court found that the appellant's actions in returning the documents had indeed caused significant additional work for the respondent, amounting to wasted costs. The court held that the respondent was entitled to recover these costs as they were directly attributable to the appellant's failure to return the documents in an appropriate form. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the proper procedures in the discovery and inspection process to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. Consequently, the order was made that the costs thrown away by the respondent were to be recovered from the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.