Woods Bagot Pty Ltd v Stapledon - [2005] SASC 346

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Civil: Application)
WOODS BAGOT PTY LTD AND ORS v STAPLEDON AND ANOR
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Perry (ex tempore)
9 September 2005
PROCEDURE - DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS - ORDERS FOR FURTHER AND BETTER DISCOVERY
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order of a District Court judge who in turn determined an appeal from the decision of a District Court master on an application for further and better discovery of documents - consideration of question whether discovery of documents could be ordered as to elements of the plaintiffs' claim which arose after the proceedings had been commenced - consideration of approach to appeals on questions of practice and procedure - held that a second appeal on such a matter would only rarely be entertained, and then only if the case raised a point of law of difficulty and general importance or to avoid a manifest injustice - leave refused.
District Court Act 1991 s 43(2)(a) and s 43(2)(b); SCR r 46A.12 and r 96A.02, referred to.
Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v AG (Hong Kong) [1970] AC 1136; Cairns, Australian Civil Procedure (Thompson Law Book Co) 6th edition 2005; Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421; Eshelbury v Federated European Bank [1932] 1 KB 423; Water Authority of Western Australia v AIL Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (1993) 10 WAR 233; Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; Re Will of F B Gilbert (dec) (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318; Glenauchen Pty Ltd v Circuit Finance Pty Ltd [2001] SASC 61 (Full Court); Harris Scarfe Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed (In Liquidation) and Ors v Ernst & Young (Reg) and Ors (No 2) [2005] SASC 168; Harris Scarfe Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) and Ors v Ernst & Young (Reg) and Ors [2005] SASC 255 (Full Court); Andrew Garrett Wine Resorts Pty Ltd and Anor v National Australia Bank Ltd (No 3) [2005] SASC 171; Star Petroleum v Pertsinidis (1993) 172 LSJS 340, considered.

WOODS BAGOT PTY LTD AND ORS v STAPLEDON AND ANOR
[2005] SASC 346
Civil

PERRY J. (ex tempore) This is an application for leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and orders made by a judge of the District Court, who, in turn, determined an appeal from an interlocutory order of a master of the District Court. The order of the master dealt with an application brought by the plaintiffs to the action, who sought orders, amongst other things, for further and better discovery of documents.
The order of the master was an interlocutory judgment within the meaning of the District Court Act 1991 (“the Act”). The appeal from the master to a single judge of the District Court was brought pursuant to s 43(2)(a) of the Act.
Clearly enough, the judgment of…

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 Woods Bagot Pty Ltd v Stapledon 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: [2005] SASC 346
Decision Date: 9 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods Bagot Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an order made by a District Court judge. The order pertained to an appeal from a decision of a District Court master who had ruled on an application for further and better discovery of documents. The central issue in the appeal was whether the court could order the discovery of documents relating to elements of the plaintiffs' claim that had arisen after the proceedings had already commenced. This case required the court to consider the approach to appeals on questions of practice and procedure, particularly in light of the significant implications such orders might have on the conduct of litigation.

The court was tasked with determining whether a second appeal on a matter of practice and procedure should be entertained. It considered the circumstances under which such an appeal might be justified, particularly where the case raised a point of law of difficulty and general importance or where it was necessary to avoid a manifest injustice. The court held that a second appeal on such a matter would only rarely be entertained, and then only if the case presented a point of law that was both difficult and of general importance, or if there was a clear need to prevent a manifest injustice. In this instance, the court found that neither condition was met.

Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal. This decision underscored the principle that appeals on questions of practice and procedure should be approached with caution, and that such appeals would only be entertained in exceptional circumstances. The court's reasoning highlighted the need to balance the interests of the parties with the efficient administration of justice, reaffirming the importance of adhering to established legal principles in procedural matters.

Orders