GORDON & GOTCH LIMITED v HARRIS; MCPHERSONS LIMITED (T/AS THE BOOKPRINTER v HARRIS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA and POWELL JA 22 September 1997 [1997] NSWCA 126 Priestley JA. As he usually does Mr McClintock has put his submissions in these applications forcefully and although I cannot on this occasion say effectively because the Court is going to dismiss the applications, nevertheless he brought to the Court's attention very clearly the basis upon which in each application leave is sought. The Court is of the view that it ought not grant leave here because it does not see that Levine J has made the basic error in each case which it is submitted he did make in treating the materials in respect of which he made his orders as being relevant, in the received sense, to the innocent dissemination issues raised by the defence in each of the cases. The Court is of the view that although the trial Judge's decision does illustrate how wide the area of relevance may be at the stage when discovery is being considered, his Honour did not misunderstand it in his application of the wide tule to the requests that were before him. The Court therefore refuses the applications with costs. Orders accordingly.