NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Garth Barnett Interior Design Pty Ltd v Ellis [2009] NSWCA 193
HEARING DATE(S): 29 June 2009 JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at [1], [19]-[22], [24], [26]; McColl JA at [23]; Young JA at [2]-[18]
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 29 June 2009
DECISION: Leave to appeal refused with costs.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - discovery of documents from prospective defendant- preliminary discovery ordered on basis that although the identity of the defendant and the causes of action were clear, there was insufficient information available to the respondents to decide whether or not it was commercially viable to commence proceedings against the applicant- in principle this is correct.
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 LEGISLATION CITED: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r.5.3(1)
CASES CITED: Morton v Nylex Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 562
Garth Barnett Interior Design Pty Ltd (Applicant) PARTIES: Stephen Ellis (First Repondent) Angie Ellis (Second Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40050/09
COUNSEL: M R Elliott (Applicant) S J Philips (Respondents)
SOLICITORS: Slade Manwaring (Applicant) McLachlan Thorpe Partners (Respondents)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4745/08
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Quirk DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 November 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40050/09
GILES JA McCOLL JA YOUNG JA
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate