Van Stokkum v The Finance Brokers Supervisory Board

[2001] WASC 327

VAN STOKKUM & ORS -v- THE FINANCE BROKERS SUPERVISORY BOARD [2001] WASC 327

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 327
Case No:	CIV:2704/2000	Heard:	9 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	28/11/01
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BERNARDUS HUBERTUS VAN STOKKUM JOHN KIMBERLEY SPRY CARL ERIC LENS WILLIAM BARNEY GREEN PATRICK JOSEPH GAFFNEY THEA CONSTANCE MILLEN DINES FRANCIS JOHN BUTLER TIMMS HENRY CLIFTON MORRIS BRIAN TERRACE SMITH BARBARA MARTHA SMITH COLIN REGINALD SHALDERS THE FINANCE BROKERS SUPERVISORY BOARD
Catchwords:	Discovery pre-action No time limit imposed in the order
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : VAN STOKKUM & ORS -v- THE FINANCE BROKERS SUPERVISORY BOARD [2001] WASC 327 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 9 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 2704 of 2000 BETWEEN : BERNARDUS HUBERTUS VAN STOKKUM

First Plaintiff

JOHN KIMBERLEY SPRY
Second Plaintiff

CARL ERIC LENS
Third Plaintiff

WILLIAM BARNEY GREEN
Fourth Plaintiff

PATRICK JOSEPH GAFFNEY
Fifth Plaintiff

THEA CONSTANCE MILLEN DINES
Sixth Plaintiff

FRANCIS JOHN BUTLER TIMMS
Seventh Plaintiff

HENRY CLIFTON MORRIS
Eighth Plaintiff

BRIAN TERRACE SMITH
BARBARA MARTHA SMITH

(Page 2)

Ninth Plaintiffs

COLIN REGINALD SHALDERS
Tenth Plaintiff

AND

THE FINANCE BROKERS SUPERVISORY BOARD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Discovery pre-action - No time limit imposed in the order

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Second Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Third Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Fourth Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Fifth Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Sixth Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Seventh Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Eighth Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon
Ninth Plaintiffs : Mr D H Solomon
Tenth Plaintiff : Mr D H Solomon

(Page 3)

Defendant : Mr R L Hooker

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Second Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Third Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Fourth Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Fifth Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Sixth Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Seventh Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Eighth Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Ninth Plaintiffs : Solomon Brothers
Tenth Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers
Defendant : Department of Employment and Consumer Protection

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by the plaintiff that the defendant give discovery pursuant to orders made by me on 7 March 2001, Registrar Dixon made on 12 April 2001 as amended by Registrar Rimmer on 14 September 2001, within seven days of this order.

2 My order of 7 March 2001 ordered the defendant to give pre-action discovery of papers relating to the finance broker Blackburne & Dixon. The later orders of Registrar Dixon of 12 April 2001, which were by consent, ordered the defendant to give discovery in the same terms in relation to nine other finance brokers. These respective orders did not impose a time limit on giving the discovery. The plaintiffs, in essence, say that the defendant has had sufficient time to give discovery and seek the discovery to be completed within seven days. They have filed an affidavit of Mr Giles in support of the application which annexes the correspondence between the parties respective solicitors and between Solomon Brothers and the Minister. The defendant has replied in a lengthy affidavit of Ms Needham sworn 8 November 2001.

3 I have read the respective affidavits and heard the respective submissions and consider that it is reasonable to give more time to the defendant to complete the discovery process. The task is a huge one as outlined in Ms Needham's affidavit. There has been some delay. Reasonable resources have been devoted to the task and reasonable progress has been made. The documents in relation to four of the brokers have been discovered in four documents, two filed in September and two filed in October 2001. They list an enormous number of documents. The defendant's task was delayed by the need to attend to requests for documents from the Royal Commission into the Finance Brokers. The plaintiffs' lawyers have chosen not to inspect the documents piecemeal and they are awaiting the completion of the discovery before making any inspection. I make no comment on the wisdom of that decision.

4 In all the circumstances I propose to give the defendant until 31 December 2001 to complete the discovery and I will so order.

5 As I consider the plaintiffs were not wrong in bringing this application as there have been delays in the completion of the discovery. At the same time I consider the seven day period asked for by the plaintiffs was unrealistically brief. I consider that the time offered by the defendant - to 31 December 2001 - to be reasonable. The plaintiffs should have consented to that period. In the circumstances I will order no order as to costs.