NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] NSWSC 393 Hearing dates: 1, 23, 28 March 2012 Decision date: 26 April 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Bergin CJ in Eq Decision: Orders for return of documents produced inadvertently. Catchwords: [DISCOVERY] - Motion for return of documents produced allegedly inadvertently - Discovery process involving numerous "reviewers" (including lawyers and law students) of many thousands of documents - Use of electronic data base that provides for categorisation of documents as relevant and/or privileged.
[PRIVILEGE] [WAIVER] - Whether documents produced informally and listed in Verified Lists of Documents, disclosed inadvertently or by mistake - Whether listing of documents in non-privileged section of Verified Lists of Documents waived privilege of documents - Where inspection of documents by party
[PRACTICE & PROCEDURE] - Practice Note SC Eq 11 Disclosure in the Equity Division - regime for preparation of evidence and confining of ambit of any necessary disclosure additional to documents already in evidence as served. Cases Cited: Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 704 Meltend Pty Ltd & Another v Restoration Clinics of Australia Pty Ltd & Others (1997) 75 FCR 511 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (1st Plaintiff) Armstrong Consulting Pty Ltd (2nd Plaintiff) Kenneth Armstrong (3rd Plaintiff) Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (1st Defendant) ERA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2nd Defendant) Expense Reduction Analysts Australasia Pty Ltd (3rd Defendant) Stuart Michael (4th Defendant) Ronald Clucas (5th Defendant) Charles Marfleet (6th Defendant) ERAGICS Limited (7th Defendant) Expense Reduction Analysts International Limited (8th Defendant) Keith Chapman (9th Defendant) Anthony Dormer (10th Defendant) Representation: Mr IR Pike SC/Mr C Bova (Plaintiffs) Mr D Fagan SC/Mr E Hyde (Defendants) Marque Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Norton Rose (4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Defendants) Dormers Commercial Lawyers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th Defendants) File Number(s): 2011/76919 Publication restriction: Nil
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