Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 19]

Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 19] [2023] WASC 114 involved a significant legal dispute regarding the discovery of documents relevant to the case. The plaintiff, Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd, sought discovery from the defendants, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and others, of documents in 48 specific categories. The defendants contested the application on various grounds, including the delay in filing and the relevance of the documents to the case. After extensive submissions and hearings, the court examined each category, allowing 22 categories either in whole, in part, or with modifications. The court dismissed the remaining categories, considering them either irrelevant or already provided.

The court addressed the defendants' argument that the delay in the application for discovery prejudiced them. The court found that the delay was partly due to the defendants' unsuccessful appeal against the initial discovery order and their unsuccessful attempts to dismiss the application. The court noted that the defendants did not press for an early hearing of the application, contributing to the delay.

The defendants also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order discovery between co-defendants. However, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled against this contention, affirming the lower court's jurisdiction to make such an order.

The court further considered the defendants' argument that the breadth of discovery sought was not justified as they were essentially third parties to the dispute between the plaintiff and the other defendants. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the defendants' role in the possession and control of the sought documents justified the discovery application.

The court concluded that while some categories were relevant and necessary for the defendants to prepare their defence, others were either irrelevant or already provided. The court's decision ensured that the defendants complied with the discovery orders while balancing the need to limit unnecessary delays and searches.