Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2007] NSWSC 1363

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2007] NSWSC 1363

HEARING DATE(S) : 29 June 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 19 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Harrison J

DECISION : See paragraph [29] for details of orders made.

CATCHWORDS : CIVIL PROCEDURE - case management - proceedings for false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution and injurious falsehood - non-compliance by plaintiffs with timetable for directions – amendments to timetable sought by plaintiffs - application by defendants for vacation of impending hearing date - EVIDENCE – access sought to documents for forensic examination – application opposed – new timetable for directions imposed including order for forensic document examination

Anthony Hamod (First Plaintiff) PARTIES : Hamock Investments Pty Limited (Second Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (First Defendant) UBS Australia Limited (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20147 of 2003

D E Baran (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : M T Hutchings (First Defendant) M R Speakman SC (Second Defendant)

Simon Diab & Associates (Plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First Defendant) Allens Arthur Robinson (Second Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HARRISON J

19 JULY 2007

020147 of 2003 Anthony Hamod v State of New South Wales & UBS Australia Limited

JUDGMENT 1 HARRISON J: This matter came before me on 29 June 2007 for directions. On that occasion counsel for the plaintiff sought an amendment to what was the then current timetable for directions as the plaintiff was unable to comply with those orders in relation to the preparation of affidavits upon which the plaintiff intended to rely. Counsel for the plaintiff indicated that those affidavits were then expected to be ready by the following Wednesday, 4 July 2007. 2 Counsel for the plaintiff outlined at that time what steps had been taken with respect to the preparation of the plaintiff's evidence. Although on an earlier occasion I had been advised by the solicitor for the plaintiff that something in the order of 20 witnesses would be called, whose statements would need to be prepared and served upon the defendants, that number had diminished somewhat by the time of the last directions hearing. 3 A draft of proposed Short Minutes of Order containing a revised timetable for directions was produced. In due course I made orders for all relevant purposes in accordance with that draft.