Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1183

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1183 Hearing dates: 12 August 2011 Decision date: 07 October 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Latham J Decision: Leave to appeal refused Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs Catchwords: PROCEDURE - preliminary discovery - application for leave to appeal against Local Court order granting discovery - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 5.2 - no sound basis for refusing to follow decision of Adams J in RTA v Care Park Ltd [2011] - no relevant distinction between intention of applicant and "purpose" required by the rule - magistrate did not apply the wrong test by referring to intention rather than purpose. Texts Cited: RTA v Care Park Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 714 Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 114 Ashi Pty Ltd v Karasco Investments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 780 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales - Plaintiff Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd - Defendant Representation: Counsel: GC Giles - Plaintiff V Culkoff - Defendant Solicitors: Hunt and Hunt - Plaintiff Steven Klinger - Defendant File Number(s): 2011/172690

Judgment 1The plaintiff filed a Summons on 26 May 2011 appealing against the decision of a Magistrate granting discovery to the defendant in respect of the names and addresses of the owner or operator of a number of vehicles which had used the defendant's car parks. 2The Summons contains two grounds, only one of which is now pressed. Before turning to that ground, it must be noted that there is a decision of this Court (Adams J) which is substantially on all fours with the instant appeal : RTA v Care Park Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 714. The plaintiff sought to distinguish it according to its facts, but it was recognised that, failing a basis for doing so, the decision is persuasive, unless I was of the view that it is demonstrably wrong. The plaintiff has filed an appeal against Adams J's judgment.