Chapel Road Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1144

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapel Road Pty Ltd v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1144 Hearing dates: 13 September 2012 Decision date: 21 September 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Leave to amend Plaintiff's pleadings refused. Further discovery by Plaintiff in relation to 'Chapel Road discovery' refused. Discovery of complaints received by Defendant relating to Stephen Cochrane ordered. Discovery in relation to Defendant's investigation of Howard Owen refused. Costs - Order 2 made on 11 July 2012 be amended to provide costs of Amendment Motion to be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings and the costs thrown away as a result of the amendment to be the defendant's costs in the proceeding Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Sufficiency of discovery, discovery not relevant to any fact in issue, amendment of statement of claim, ss56-58 Civil Procedure Act 2005, Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Chapel Road Pty Limited v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2011] NSWSC 419 Chapel Road Pty Limited v Australian Securities Investments Commission (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 584 Proctor & Gamble v Medical Research [2001] NSWSC 183 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Chapel Road Pty Ltd - Plaintiff Australian Security and Investments Commission File Number(s): 2006/266784 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1These proceedings rest on the plaintiff's claim that it lost its securities licence, on which its business depended, as the result of actions wrongly taken by the defendant, in circumstances where it later succeeded in having its license restored to it, but was unable to re-establish its business, given what had transpired during the time that it was unable to operate. 2This judgment deals with questions of discovery, about which the parties were not able to reach complete agreement, as well as an oral application for leave to amend the second further amended statement of claim, which was made during the course of the hearing of the dispute over discovery. Leave to amend was opposed by the defendant. 3Governing the questions which arose to be determined were the requirements of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, which requires the Court to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. Consideration must also be given to the requirements of s 57, as to the just determination of the proceedings, the efficient disposal of the business of the court, the efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources, and the timely disposal of the proceedings; the requirements of s 58, which requires the Court to act in accordance with the dictates of justice; the elimination of delay dealt with in s 59 and s 60, as to proportionality of cost.