Williams v TT-Line - [2021] VSC 150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
ADMIRALTY LIST

Not Restricted

S ECI 2018 0998

ANDREW MICHAEL WILLIAMS & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 061 996 174) & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF RULING:	30 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams v TT-Line
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 150

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application pursuant to s 27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Release of obligation imposed in respect of documents provided under compulsion of discovery – Requirement for special circumstances - Application granted.

---

The Papers:

First plaintiff’s material

Submissions dated 16 March 2021
Reply Submissions dated 19 March 2021
Affidavit of Shane Ryan sworn 25 February 2021 and exhibits
Affidavit of Stuart Wright sworn 19 March 2021

First Defendant’s material

Submissions dated 16 March 2021
Supplementary Submissions dated 18 March 2021
Affidavit of James Morrison sworn 16 March 2021 and exhibits

Second Defendant’s material

Submissions dated 18 March 2021

HIS HONOUR:

This Ruling concerns the application of the first plaintiff, Andrew Williams, (Williams) by Summons filed 10 March 2021 for leave of the Supreme Court of Victoria (the Court) under s 27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (CPA) releasing him from the obligation imposed under s 27(1) in respect of the documents listed in Schedule 1 to the Summons[1] (the Schedule 1 documents).
[1]Summons filed 10 March 2021, sch 1.

Subsequent, to the issue of the first plaintiff’s application of 10 March 2021, Williams has:

(a) abandoned his application in relation to documents 1 and 2 of Schedule 1; and

(b) concedes in respect of documents 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 that, insofar as those documents contain third party details there should be redaction before disclosure.

(c) by his Reply Submissions dated 19 March 2021 (Williams Reply Submissions) Williams concedes that document 4 has been partly reproduced in the prosecution brief.[2]

[2]It appears that the relevant document in question here is probably not document 14, but document 4 (see Affidavit of James Morrison, 16 March 2021 (Morrison Affidavit), 16 March 2021, [15(iii)]). Refer also to Williams Reply Submissions, 19 March 2021 in which Williams submits ‘In respect of document 14 of Schedule 1, only a part of the document is contained in the prosecution brief: Morrison Affidavit, [15]. As such Williams continues to press for release of the whole document. If the Court is minded to grant Williams’ motion, the Court should make Order 1 of the NoM albeit excluding documents 1 and 2 of Schedule 1.’.

Section 27 of the CPA provides:

(1)A person who receives any information or documents provided by another person involved in the civil proceeding as a result of disclosure in compliance with the overarching obligation in section 26 is subject to an obligation not to use the information or documents, or permit the information or documents to be used, for a purpose other than…

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 TT-Line

Details

AGLC: Williams v TT-Line [2021] VSC 150
Case: [2021] VSC 150
Decision Date: 30 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams brought an application against TT-Line in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking the release of certain documents that had been obtained through the discovery process. The application was made under section 27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The central issue before the Court was whether the special circumstances required for the release of documents obtained under compulsion of discovery had been established by Williams.

The Court examined the principles governing the release of documents obtained under compulsion of discovery and noted that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that special circumstances exist. The Court further considered the factors relevant to determining whether special circumstances had been demonstrated, including the public interest in the release of the documents, the extent to which the documents were relevant to the proceedings, and the potential prejudice to the applicant if the documents were released. Ultimately, the Court found that the special circumstances required for the release of the documents had been established by Williams.

Having determined that the special circumstances required for the release of the documents had been demonstrated, the Court granted Williams' application. The Court ordered that the documents obtained under compulsion of discovery be released to the parties involved in the proceedings. This decision provides guidance to parties in similar situations and highlights the importance of establishing special circumstances when seeking the release of documents obtained under compulsion of discovery.

Orders