SINGH -v- FRIEDMAN [No 3] [2016] WASC 308

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 308
Case No:	CIV:2183/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	ALLANSON J	Delivered:	23/09/16
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted in part Orders for further and better discovery made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SUKHWANT SINGH NEVILLE FRIEDMAN JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Discovery by categories Further and better discovery Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78 Singh v Friedman [No 2] [2016] WASC 39 Stanley v Layne Christensen Company [2004] WASCA 50

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SINGH -v- FRIEDMAN [No 3] [2016] WASC 308 CORAM : ALLANSON J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 2183 of 2011

Consolidated by Orders dated 24 May 2012

BETWEEN : SUKHWANT SINGH

Plaintiff

AND

NEVILLE FRIEDMAN

First Defendant

JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 1476 of 2012 BETWEEN : SUKHWANT SINGH

Plaintiff

AND

NEVILLE FRIEDMAN

First Defendant

JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery by categories - Further and better discovery - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted in part

Orders for further and better discovery made

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2183 of 2011

Consolidated by Orders dated 24 May 2012

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

First Defendant : Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers

Second Defendant : Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers

CIV 1476 of 2012

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

First Defendant : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

Second Defendant : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Singh v Friedman [No 2] [2016] WASC 39
Stanley v Layne Christensen Company [2004] WASCA 50

1 ALLANSON J: In a postscript to a judgment delivered on 24 April 2012, McKechnie J said of this action:

Mr Singh, Mr Friedman and Mr Lurie should know better than most, the cost and perils of litigation. Stripped of its legal intricacies and possibilities for relief, the substantive action is simply about a sum of money. The parties would be wise to negotiate a solution which will leave all of them free to resume concentration on their practice and their clients.

2 The action will not go to trial until 2017, six years after it was commenced. In this application, the parties are still disputing discovery.

3 Discovery in the action was by categories. Mr Singh proposed that the defendants give discovery of 57 specified categories of documents. About half of those categories were disputed. Following a hearing in 2013, I ordered discovery of some only of the disputed categories, stood five over for further argument if the parties wished to pursue them, and otherwise dismissed…

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 Singh v Friedman [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Singh v Friedman [No 3] [2016] WASC 308
Case: [2016] WASC 308
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v Friedman, the court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff, Singh, could be granted further and better discovery beyond the categories already provided. This case involved a complex dispute between Singh, the plaintiff, and Friedman, the defendant, which included allegations of breach of contract and deceit. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought further and better discovery, arguing that the categories of documents already provided by the defendant were insufficient to fully understand the nature of the dispute. The defendant opposed the application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process and that the plaintiff had not shown that the categories were inadequate.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficient basis to grant further and better discovery. This involved assessing whether the categories of documents already provided were sufficient and if the plaintiff had shown that additional discovery was necessary to understand the dispute fully. The court also had to consider whether the application was an abuse of process and whether it was appropriate to grant the application for further and better discovery. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that the categories of documents were inadequate, but it did acknowledge that some documents were relevant to the dispute. The court concluded that the application was not an abuse of process and that the plaintiff was entitled to some further and better discovery to obtain these relevant documents.

The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to provide further and better discovery. The orders specified the categories of documents that the defendant was required to provide. The court emphasised that the grant of further and better discovery was limited to the specific categories identified and was not a blanket order for additional discovery. The court also noted that any costs associated with the additional discovery would be borne by the plaintiff. This decision highlights the importance of thorough initial discovery and the need for clear justification when seeking further and better discovery.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted in part

Orders for further and better discovery made

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.