WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ANOR [2000] WASCA 224

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 224
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	21/08/2000
Case No:	FUL:80/2000	Heard:	12 JULY 2000
Coram:	OWEN J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	12/07/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Subject to the importation of the requirement of reasonableness, an inspecting party who wishes to make copies must be provided with the facilities to do so in the office of the producing party
PDF Version

Parties:	RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Western Australia Appeal against the decision of a Master under O 63A Rules of the Supreme Court Construction of O 26 r8A dealing with discovery Whether a party producing documents for inspection is required to make a photocopying machine available to the inspecting party to enable copies to be made Whether construction of O 26 r 8A requires a degree of reasonableness to be read into it Whether sub-rule (3) of O 26 r 8A requires documents which are removed for photocopying to be replaced in precisely the same position from which they were moved
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court, O 26 r 8A
Case References:	Nil Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Bropho v State of Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1 Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1980] 3 All ER 475 Clay v Karlson [2000] WASC 132 Craig Williamson Pty Ltd v Barrowcliff [1915] VLR 450 Crombie v Unity Church in Australia Property Trust (WA) (1997) 17 WAR 291 Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 104 ALR 621 Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404 Montarello v Berkman Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 15 ACLC 556 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 The State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ANOR [2000] WASCA 224 CORAM : OWEN J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 12 JULY 2000 DELIVERED : 12 JULY 2000 PUBLISHED : 21 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : FUL 80 of 2000 BETWEEN : RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS

MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS

Applicants

AND

GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER

JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER

Respondents

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure Western Australia - Appeal against the decision of a Master under O 63A Rules of the Supreme Court - Construction of O 26 r8A dealing with discovery - Whether a party producing documents for inspection is required to make a photocopying machine available to the inspecting party to enable copies to be made - Whether construction of O 26 r 8A requires a degree of reasonableness to be read into it - Whether sub-rule (3) of O 26 r 8A requires documents which are removed for photocopying to…

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 WILLIAMS v Grainger

Details

AGLC: WILLIAMS v Grainger [2000] WASCA 224
Case: [2000] WASCA 224
Decision Date: 21 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams v Grainger, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central issue involved the interpretation and application of O 26 r 8A of the Supreme Court Rules 2006 (WA) concerning the discovery of documents. Specifically, the matter focused on whether a party who produces documents for inspection is required to make a photocopying machine available to facilitate the inspecting party in making copies of those documents. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if a requirement of reasonableness should be read into O 26 r 8A and whether sub-rule (3) of O 26 r 8A mandates that documents removed for photocopying be replaced in the exact same position from which they were moved.

The court examined the language of O 26 r 8A and the broader context of the Rules, considering the intent behind the provision. It held that the Rule does not explicitly require the provision of a photocopying machine but also recognised the practical necessity for an inspecting party to make copies of documents for their records. The court concluded that while the Rule itself does not mandate the provision of a photocopying machine, a degree of reasonableness must be implied. This means that a party producing documents should reasonably accommodate the inspecting party's need to make copies. Regarding the replacement of documents, the court determined that sub-rule (3) of O 26 r 8A does not demand a precise repositioning of documents but rather that the documents be returned to a reasonable location within the office.

Ultimately, the court held that an inspecting party who wishes to make copies must be provided with the facilities to do so, subject to the importation of the requirement of reasonableness. This decision provides clarity for parties involved in discovery processes, ensuring that while the specific provision of a photocopying machine is not mandatory, the principle of reasonableness must govern the provision of copying facilities.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subject to the importation of the requirement of reasonableness, an inspecting party who wishes to make copies must be provided with the facilities to do so in the office of the producing party

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.