Legal Research
Cases
Williams v TT-Line (No 2)

Williams v TT-Line (No 2)

Case [2022] VSC 413 21 July 2022

Discovery & Disclosure

Harman Undertaking

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
ADMIRALTY LIST

S ECI 2018 0998

ANDREW MICHAEL WILLIAMS	Plaintiffs
(and others according to the schedule of parties)
v
TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 061 996 174)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Connock J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 July 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 July 2022 ex tempore (revised 26 July 2022)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams v TT-Line (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 413

---

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 and information to allow use in related proceeding – Requirement for special circumstances – Harman undertaking – Implied undertaking not to use documents or information for a purpose other than the legal proceeding – Documents and information required to have been produced under compulsion – Documents and information needed for defence to criminal charges – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	S Ryan (Solicitor)	Ryan Legal
For the Defendant	Martin Scott QC	HFW Australia

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By summons filed 19 July 2022, the defendant seeks an order pursuant to s 27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (Act) that it be released from its obligation under s 27(1) of the Act not to use certain documents and information filed or produced in this proceeding for a purpose other than in connection with this proceeding. The purpose for which it is said in the summons that the defendant wishes to use the documents and information is to assist the defendant with its defence in a criminal proceeding in the Magistrates‘ Court of Tasmania brought against it by the Director of Biosecurity Operations for Biosecurity Tasmania (Tasmanian Proceeding).

In the Tasmanian Proceeding the defendant is subject to 29 charges brought under animal welfare legislation in connection with the transport of 30 horses (Horses) across Bass Strait on the Spirit of Tasmania between 28 and 29 January 2018. The court was informed by senior counsel for the defendant that, following a directions hearing in the Tasmanian Proceeding held on 20 July 2022, further particulars of the charges were to be filed and served later that day but are now expected to be served very shortly.

The primary purpose of the defendant’s application is to allow the documents to be used by the defendant to potentially obtain expert opinion evidence from Dr Dunn, Professor Slocombe, Mr Kneller and Mr Bransden (Defendant’s Experts). The Defendant‘s Experts have each filed expert reports in this proceeding, have participated in joint expert conclaves, and have also participated in the production of court-ordered joint reports filed in this proceeding.

In a separate criminal proceeding brought against him by the Director of Biosecurity Operations for Biosecurity Tasmania, the first plaintiff has also been charged with numerous offences under animal welfare legislation in connection with the transport of the Horses across…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Williams v TT-Line (No 2) [2022] VSC 413
Case: [2022] VSC 413
Decision Date: 21 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams initiated an application under section 27(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) seeking the release of an obligation imposed in relation to certain documents and information. These documents were required to be used in a related proceeding. The respondents, TT-Line, opposed the application, arguing that the documents were needed for the defence of criminal charges. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court had to decide whether the special circumstances required for the release of the obligation were present.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the special circumstances existed to justify the release of the obligation imposed in respect of the documents and information. The respondents argued that the documents were required for the defence of criminal charges and that their use in the related proceeding would breach an implied undertaking not to use them for a purpose other than the legal proceeding. The applicant, Williams, contended that the documents were produced under compulsion and that there were no special circumstances that would prevent their use in the related proceeding.

The court found that the special circumstances required for the release of the obligation were indeed present. It was noted that the documents were required to be produced under compulsion and that their use in the related proceeding would not breach any implied undertaking. The court considered the nature of the documents, their relevance to the related proceeding, and the Harman undertaking, which implied that the documents should be used solely for the legal proceeding in which they were produced. The court concluded that the documents and information were needed for the defence of criminal charges and that their use in the related proceeding would not prejudice the respondents.

The Supreme Court of Victoria granted the application, releasing the obligation imposed in respect of the documents and information. This decision allowed Williams to use the documents in the related proceeding, provided that they were not used for any purpose other than the legal proceeding. The respondents were required to provide a Harman undertaking to ensure that the documents would not be used outside the scope of the legal proceeding. This ruling provided clarity on the circumstances under which documents produced under compulsion could be used in related proceedings, balancing the interests of the parties involved.

Orders