The New South Wales Greyhound Breeders Owners and Trainers Association Limited v Attorney General of NSW

[2016] NSWSC 1177

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	The New South Wales Greyhound Breeders Owners & Trainers Association Limited v Attorney General of NSW [2016] NSWSC 1177
Hearing dates:	9 August 2016
Date of orders:	09 August 2016
Decision date:	09 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Adamson J
Decision:	See paragraph 6
Catchwords:	DIRECTIONS – orders that will advance proceedings in efficient and cost effective way – refusal to order discovery in support of “no evidence” ground
Legislation Cited:	Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The New South Wales Greyhound Breeders Owners & Trainers Association Limited (Plaintiff) Attorney General of New South Wales (1st Defendant) The Honourable Michael Hudson McHugh AC QC in his capacity as Commissioner appointed under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 (2nd Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: DMJ Bennett QC/AL Tokley SC/A Flecknoe-Brown (Plaintiff) NC Hutley SC/EK Lim (1st Defendant) Submitting appearance by 2nd Defendant   Solicitors: DCE Lawyers (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor for NSW (1st Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/229063

Judgment

1. This matter is before me for directions at the first return date of the summons filed on 29 July 2016 by the New South Wales Greyhounds Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association Limited (the plaintiff). The plaintiff seeks orders against the Attorney General of New South Wales (the first defendant) and the Honourable Michael McHugh in his capacity as Commissioner appointed under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 (NSW) (the second defendant). The orders sought are, principally, a declaration that a report dated 16 June 2016 of the Special Commission of Inquiry prepared by the second defendant at the request of the first defendant into the greyhound racing industry is invalid and of no effect because it was beyond the jurisdiction of the second defendant.

2. Mr Bennett QC, who appears with Mr Tokley SC and Mr Flecknoe-Brown on behalf of the plaintiff, seeks orders in terms of short minutes, which include an order for discovery of several categories of documents. Mr Hutley SC, who appears with Mr Lim on behalf of the first defendant, contends that it would be inappropriate to order discovery of such categories having regard to the issues in dispute and the nature of the proceedings, not to mention the significant expense of costs and time in assembling all the documents sought.

3. By way of illustration I will refer to the plaintiff’s category 2(a), which seeks discovery of all written submissions and other documents provided to the Special Commission by Greyhounds Australasia including, but not limited to, response 21 to Breeding Issues Paper dated 23 November 2015.

4. It appears, having regard to the index to the three volume report provided by Mr Hutley (MFI 1) that to require discovery of such documents will require the production of a significant quantity of documents, the vast majority of which is likely to be wholly irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim for relief. Insofar as Mr Bennett identifies a “no evidence” ground as the basis for the plaintiff's case, Mr Hutley proposes that such a ground could be more reasonably and efficiently dealt with by an order for discovery in due course which requires the defendants to provide such documents as the defendants contend are relevant to, and constitute evidence in support of, a particular finding on a particular topic.

5. I am satisfied that the short minutes of order provided by the first defendant will accommodate the matters raised by the plaintiff in Mr Bennett’s short opening of the plaintiff’s case and that they will advance the proceedings in a more efficient and cost-effective way than the short minutes of order provided by the plaintiff.

6. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1.   On or before 16 August 2016 the first defendant is to file and serve on the plaintiff any request for particulars.

2.   On or about 6 September 2016 the plaintiff is to file and serve on the first defendant its response to any request for particulars served on it in accordance with order 1.

3.   On or about 20 September 2016 the first defendant is to file and serve a response to the plaintiff's summons filed on 29 July 2016.

4.   On or before 27 September 2016 the plaintiff is to file and serve any motion seeking orders for discovery.

5.   The matter is listed for further directions and return of that notice of motion before me on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 9.15am.

6.   The parties have liberty to apply on three days' notice.

7.   The costs of today are to be costs in the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 August 2016