Falk v Finlay (No.2) [2000] NSWSC 17

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Falk v Finlay (No.2) [2000] NSWSC 17 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4482/96 HEARING DATE(S) : 2 February 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 February 2000

PARTIES : Michael Falk (P) Ronald Arthur Finlay, Edward Bertram Cowpe, Francis Reginald Lawson, John Gregory McCombe, Roderick Hamilton McGeoch, Allan John Macdonald, Frederick John Kehoe, Richard Kay Liebmann, Paul Richard McCann, Alexander John Munton, Geoffrey Hungerford Pike, Andrew Lee Price, Anthony John Sheehan, Peter William Damian Smith, Andrew Wentworth Stevenson, Stuart David Westgarth, Patrick Bill Williams, Jennifer Margaret Boland, Carmen Champion, Charles Macquarie Cowper, Graeme John Dennis, Michael John Ellis, Julian Maxwell Gregory, John Henry Herron, William John Koeck, Paul Harry Huges, Andrew John Lumsden, Peter Thomas Pether, Erica Jane Robinson, Stephen Price (Ds) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J

COUNSEL : D L Williams (P) D Pritchard (D) SOLICITORS : Abbott Tout (P) Holman Webb (D) CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - application for orders that further discovery be given with respect to specific classes of documents - whether wider orders are appropriate when the Court finds that discovery has been given under a misapprehension as to the applicable legal principles DECISION : Orders for further discovery made - see paragraph 22

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

4 FEBRUARY 2000

4482/96 - MICHAEL FALK V RONALD ARTHUR FINLAY & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 24 December 1989 I delivered written reasons for judgment on an application by the plaintiff, by notice of motion, for orders for further discovery of documents by the defendants. I found that the defendants' discovery had been deficient and that orders for further discovery should be made. I stood the application over until 2 February 2000 to hear submissions on the appropriate form of the orders to give effect to my judgment, and on costs. At the further hearing on 2 February 2000, it emerged from submissions and discussion that there were three issues in contention which would require further rulings. They are: · whether it would be too ambiguous to order Mr Finlay and Mr Westgarth to file affidavits describing ' in detail ' the inquiries made and steps taken to comply with my orders; · whether I should order Mr Westgarth to file an affidavit to the effect that he had by that time provided a copy of my earlier judgment and my orders to each individual defendant; · most importantly, whether I should make an order to the effect that the entire discovery process be repeated, so far as it relates to the question of pension entitlement which remains in contention between the parties. I shall consider each of these issues in turn. Is 'in detail' too ambiguous?