Waterhouse v Perkins - [2001] NSWSC 13

CITATION: Waterhouse v Perkins & 3 Ors:Waterhouse v Perkins & 4 Ors [2001] NSWSC 13

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13146 of 1991; 21381 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S): 23 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 January 2001

PARTIES :

MARTIN OTTO WATERHOUSE
(Plaintiff)
v
KEVIN PERKINS
(First Defendant)
GORDON & GOTCH LIMITED
(Second Defendant)
CAPRICORN LINK PTY LIMITED
(Third Defendant)
McPHERSON T/A THE BOOK PRINTER
(Fourth Defendant)
MARTIN OTTO WATERHOUSE
(Plaintiff)
v
KEVIN PERKINS
(First Defendant)
718932 PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOBE PRESS PTY LIMITED)
(Second Defendant)
CAPRICORN LINK PTY LIMITED
(Third Defendant)
DAVID BRIAN INWOOD (AKA BRUCE INWOD)
(Fourth Defendant)
YVONNE INWOOD (AKA ISABEL INWOOD)
(Fifth Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
R A Campbell
(Plaintiff)
P Beazley
(First Defendant)
B Connell
(Second Defendant)
T Stienissen
(Third Defendant - No. 21381/96)
D Caspersonn
(Fourth Defendant - No. 13146/91)

SOLICITORS:
Waterhouse Solicitors
(Plaintiff)
Philip J Beazley
(First Defendant)
Bush Burke & Company
(Second Defendant - No.13146/91)
(Third Defendant - No. 21381/96)
Gye Associates
(Third Defendant - No. 13146/91)
(Third & Fourth Defendants - No. 21381/96)
Minter Ellison
(Fourth Defendant)
Stephen Blanks & Associates
(Fifth Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Interrogatories - discovery - Supreme Coutr Act 1970 Pt 7B - compulsory mediation

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED: Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 814
Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB [1985] 1 NSWLR 58

DECISION: See paragraphs 101 to 106

DLJ: 2

[2001] NSWSC 13

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

DEFAMATION LIST

No. 13146 of 1991

No. 21381 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

THURSDAY 25 JANUARY 2001

MARTIN OTTO WATERHOUSE
(Plaintiff)

v

KEVIN PERKINS
(First Defendant)

GORDON & GOTCH LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

CAPRICORN LINK PTY LIMITED
(Third Defendant)

McPHERSON T/A THE BOOK PRINTER
(Fourth Defendant)

MARTIN OTTO WATERHOUSE
(Plaintiff)

v

KEVIN PERKINS
(First Defendant)

718932 PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOBE PRESS PTY LIMITED)
(Second Defendant)

CAPRICORN LINK PTY LIMITED
(Third Defendant)

DAVID BRIAN INWOOD (AKA BRUCE INWOD)
(Fourth Defendant)

YVONNE INWOOD (AKA ISABEL INWOOD)
(Fifth Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Interrogatories - discovery -

Supreme Court Act, 1970

Pt 7B - compulsory mediation)

1 In this first action (1991) the relevant pleadings appear to be as follows (and I leave to one side cross-claims): an Amended Statement of Claim filed 23 August 1996. This alleges that the defendants published the book “in or about 1990 or 1991” (paragraph 5). The particulars purportedly given under SCR Pt 67 r 12(a) state that the book was “first published in November/December 1990 and continuously up to and including the date of the commencement of these proceedings;” proceedings were in fact commenced on 11 June 1991.

2 The defences appear to be made up of the following. An Amended Defence of the first defendant (Perkins) filed on 7 July 2000. This is filed to the Amended Statement of Claim. Defences under ss 15 and 16 (justification/contextual justification) are pleaded as are defences under s 13 (qualified privilege and comment) as well as protected report under s 24.

3…

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 Waterhouse v Perkins

Details

AGLC: Waterhouse v Perkins [2001] NSWSC 13
Case: [2001] NSWSC 13
Decision Date: 25 January 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waterhouse v Perkins arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The parties involved were Waterhouse, the plaintiff, and Perkins, the defendant. The nature of the dispute centred on an application made by the plaintiff to enforce the defendant's responses to interrogatories and compel discovery of documents. This application was predicated on the defendant's failure to adequately respond to the interrogatories or provide the requested documents. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court to determine the appropriate legal remedies.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's responses to interrogatories were sufficient and whether the plaintiff's request for discovery of documents was justified. The court was tasked with examining the adequacy of the defendant's answers to the interrogatories and assessing whether the documents sought by the plaintiff were relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the statutory framework under the Supreme Court Act 1970, particularly Part 7B, provided any specific provisions or guidelines applicable to the case.

The court found that the defendant's answers to the interrogatories were not satisfactory and that the plaintiff's request for discovery of documents was justified. The court concluded that the defendant had not met the requirements of providing full and frank disclosure as mandated by the law. Furthermore, the court noted that the statutory provisions under Part 7B of the Supreme Court Act 1970 supported the plaintiff's application. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to provide satisfactory answers to the interrogatories and to disclose the requested documents. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and the principles of full and frank disclosure in litigation.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant provide adequate answers to the interrogatories within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the defendant was directed to disclose the documents sought by the plaintiff. The court's ruling underscored the importance of compliance with procedural requirements in litigation and the need for parties to provide complete and accurate information to facilitate the fair and efficient resolution of disputes.

Orders