STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ANTHONY HAMOD [2007] NSWCA 186

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ANTHONY HAMOD [2007] NSWCA 186

HEARING DATE(S): 25 July 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; McColl JA at 5; Campbell JA at 6

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 25 July 2007

DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs.

CASES CITED: Sroka v Gorbal & Scott (1980) SASR 356

PARTIES: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES ANTHONY HAMOD

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40438/2007

COUNSEL: Appellant: P Menzies QC/ M Hutchings Respondent: R McKeand SC/ S Jeppesen, M Seck

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Crown Solicitor Respondent: Simon Diab & Associates

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20147/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Simpson J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 13 June 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40438/07

MASON P McCOLL JA CAMPBELL JA

Wednesday 25 July 2007

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v HAMOD Judgment 1 MASON P: The claim with regard to malicious prosecution raises issues that include whether the proceedings were launched (by the arresting officers) and maintained (by the Commissioner of Police and DPP) without reasonable or probable cause. It has not been shown that the classes of documents required to be discovered lack relevance to this issue. 2 It was open to Simpson J to conclude that the documents referred to in the Amended Categories of Documents for Discovery by First Defendant ought to be discovered. Her Honour explicitly addressed the mandate of UCPR 21.2(2) as regards the need to confine discovery to what the court considered to be justified in the circumstances. 3 The judge did not overlook the potential oppressiveness of the discovery order. There was however, no evidence on this topic when the matter was heard. Her Honour's order, being interlocutory, is capable of being revisited if evidence is adduced as to particular or unexpected problems that might arise (cf Sroka v Gorbal & Scott (1980) 25 SASR 356, a case involving interrogatories). 4 This was an interlocutory decision on a matter of practice and procedure. applying well-known principles. The case for appellate intervention has not been established. 5 McCOLL JA: I agree. 6 CAMPBELL JA: I agree. 7 MASON P: The summons is dismissed with costs. **********