Woodley v Woodley

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WOODLEY -v- WOODLEY [2017] WASC 176

CORAM: TOTTLE J

HEARD: 31 MAY 2017

DELIVERED : 31 MAY 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 1406 of 2016

BETWEEN: WAYNE CHARLES WOODLEY
Plaintiff
AND
TERRY RAY WOODLEY
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Application for further and better discovery - Where documents sought either no longer in possession, custody or power, or have already been provided

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr S J Davis
Defendant: In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: MGD Law
Defendant: In person

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

Nil
TOTTLE J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 31 May 2017 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The defendant has brought an application by way of a minute dated 18 April 2017. In that minute, the defendant identifies seven categories of documents of which he seeks discovery.
The documents sought by this application for discovery have either been discovered by the plaintiff by a list of documents dated 24 October 2016, verified by affidavit sworn on the same date, or are addressed in an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 17 May 2017. In that affidavit, the plaintiff deposes to the fact that he has either formerly had documents falling within the categories in his possession, custody or power, but no longer has them, or that he has given discovery of those documents, and related the discovery or the categories of discovery back to his earlier affidavits.
The plaintiff has adopted this approach without prejudice to a contention that the documents are not relevant, in a discovery sense, to the issues in the proceedings. I consider that the plaintiff's concerns about the lack of relevance of those documents are well-founded. But in the light of the way the plaintiff has chosen to deal with the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider the question of relevance for the purposes of disposing of this application.
The affidavits of discovery sworn by the plaintiff are conclusive.[1] Mr Woodley, the defendant acting in person, has not sought to challenge the conclusiveness of those affidavits by putting on what is sometimes referred to as a contentious affidavit, although he has made submissions to the effect that the discovery is inadequate and there are other documents in the plaintiff's possession, custody or power which should have been discovered. But none of those submissions have sufficient force to disturb the operation of the principle that the further affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 17 May 2017 is conclusive.
[1] See Kendall & Curthoys Civil Procedure - Western Australia [26.6.7].
For those reasons, I dismiss the defendant's application brought by way of the minute of 18 April 2017.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woodley v Woodley, the parties involved were the plaintiff and the defendant, both of whom were family members. The nature of the dispute was a legal battle over a will and the subsequent distribution of an estate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue that the court had to address was whether the plaintiff was entitled to further and better discovery of documents, specifically those that the defendant had claimed were either no longer in their possession, custody, or power, or had already been provided.

The court examined whether the plaintiff had a legitimate need for the documents sought and whether the defendant had adequately justified their claim that the documents were either no longer available or had already been disclosed. The plaintiff argued that the documents were essential for the proper conduct of the case, while the defendant maintained that any further disclosure would be an undue burden and unnecessary given the circumstances.

The court ultimately found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the further discovery of documents. It was held that the documents in question were either no longer in the defendant's possession, custody, or power, or had already been provided. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not shown how the additional documents would materially assist in the case and concluded that the application for further and better discovery was not warranted. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that discovery should be proportionate and not impose an undue burden on the party from whom the discovery is sought.

As a result, the application for further and better discovery was dismissed. The court ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the application. The court's ruling underscored the importance of balancing the rights of parties in discovery proceedings with the need to avoid unnecessary duplication and undue hardship.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established