WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2016] WASCA 226

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 226
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	19/12/2016
Case No:	CACV:128/2015	Heard:	6 SEPTEMBER 2016
Coram:	MARTIN CJ NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	6/09/16
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TERRY RAY WOODLEY ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY
Catchwords:	Application for leave to appeal from decision dismissing application for further and better discovery Turns on own facts Application dismissed
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Case References:	Pearce v International Mining Technologies Limited [2009] WASCA 239

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2016] WASCA 226 CORAM : MARTIN CJ

NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PUBLISHED : 19 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 128 of 2015 BETWEEN : TERRY RAY WOODLEY

Applicant

AND

ROSS MAXWELL WOODLEY

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : BEECH J

Citation : WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [No 2] [2015] WASC 274

File No : CIV 2080 of 2013

Catchwords:

Application for leave to appeal from decision dismissing application for further and better discovery - Turns on own facts - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr J M Burke

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : MDS Legal

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

Pearce v International Mining Technologies Limited [2009] WASCA 239

MARTIN CJ

: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 6 September 2016 and has been edited from the Transcript).

1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the judge managing these proceedings in the commercial and managed cases list in which he dismissed an application for further and better discovery of documents made by the plaintiff in those proceedings, who is the applicant for leave in this appeal.

2 It is well established that before leave will be granted to appeal from an interlocutory decision, the applicant for leave will generally be required to show that the decision appealed against is wrong or at least arguably attended with sufficient doubt to support the grant of leave to appeal. The applicant must also establish that a substantial injustice would be done if leave to appeal was not granted and the interlocutory decision was not reversed.

3 Decisions of the highest authority establish that a tight rein must be kept upon interference with the orders of judges at first instance exercising discretions with respect to points of practice or procedure. In this court, it is also well established that there is a particular need to refrain from interfering with interlocutory procedural decisions made by judges managing cases in the commercial and managed cases list.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woodley v Woodley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASCA 226
Decision Date: 19 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application in Woodley v Woodley was brought by the respondent, who sought leave to appeal from a decision dismissing their application for further and better discovery. The application was dismissed by the court, and the appeal was subsequently dismissed as well. The respondent, who was the party against whom the decision was made, was seeking additional information that was not provided in the original discovery process.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the application for further and better discovery should be granted and if the refusal to grant such an application was appropriate. The court was required to consider the principles governing discovery, the necessity of the additional information sought, and whether the application for further and better discovery was justified.

The court found that the application turned on its own facts and that the principles of discovery were not sufficiently compelling to warrant the granting of further and better discovery. The court held that the application for further and better discovery was not justified and dismissed the application. The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Appeal dismissed

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.