Joseph Lahoud & anor v Victor Lahoud & ors [2000] NSWIRComm 106

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session

CITATION : Joseph Lahoud & anor v Victor Lahoud & ors [2000] NSWIRComm 106 APPLICANT Joseph Lahoud & anor PARTIES : RESPONDENT Victor Lahoud & ors FILE NUMBER: IRC282 of 1999 CORAM: Glynn J CATCHWORDS : Practice and procedure - documents produced on summons - application for leave to use in proceedings elsewhere - principles - leave refused LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 s 106 Crest Homes Plc v Marks [1987] 1 AC 829 CASES CITED : Home Office v Harman [1983] AC 280 Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgeland Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217 HEARING DATES: 05/25/2000; 06/15/2000 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/21/2000

APPLICANT Mr I Neil of Counsel SOLICITORS Mr W Chaffey Le Compte Davey LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr R Crowe of Counsel SOLICITORS Mr A Thorpe Aitken McLachlan & Thorpe

JUDGMENT: - 7 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN COURT SESSION

CORAM: GLYNN J

21 JUNE 2000

MATTER NO. IRC282 OF 1999

JOSEPH LAHOUD & ANOR v VICTOR LAHOUD & ORS Application under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

1 Joseph Lahoud (the first applicant) and Joseph Lahoud & Associates Pty Ltd (the second applicant) have sought by Notice of Motion to move the Commission for leave to use certain identified documents produced on summons for the purpose of these proceedings pursuant to s 106, for the purpose of other proceedings to enforce or otherwise recover the debt disclosed in those documents. 2 Those documents embrace the financial statements and income tax return of the second respondent for the year ending 30 June 1998, together with documents supporting the schedule of the second respondent's trade creditors as at 30 June 1998. 3 It was said that: The ground and reason on which this application is made is that there are special circumstances justifying the grant of such leave, including, inter alia, the nature of the documents, the circumstances in which they apparently came into existence and for which they were apparently used, the nature of the information in the documents, and the decisive contribution that the documents are likely to make in achieving justice in the other proceedings. 4 It is convenient to set out the background to this interlocutory decision as described in the applicant's outline of submissions in relation to the Notice of Motion: 1. By their [originating] summons, the applicants claim, inter alia, that they and [Victor Lahoud (the first respondent), Castle Constructions Pty Ltd (the second respondent) and Solidare Pty Ltd (the third respondent), referred to collectively as] the respondents, were party to arrangements whereby together they would contribute to, and work on, various development projects, and, in return, the applicants would share in any profit in the projects, or otherwise be compensated for their work and the commercial risks they shared with the respondents.