NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: RSA (Moorvale Station) Pty Ltd v VDM CCE Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 534 Hearing dates: 8 May 2013 Decision date: 09 May 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Technology and Construction List Before: Stevenson J Decision: Documents to be disclosed Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Practice Note SC Eq 11 - whether certain documents ought to be disclosed where the parties have not yet served all of their evidence - evidence in chief served - documents said to be necessary for expert reply evidence - whether exceptional circumstances necessitating disclosure exist Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) Practice Note SC Eq 11 Cases Cited: Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 393 Leda Manorstead Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue; Leda Manorstead Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWSC 913 Leighton International v Hodges; Thiess v Reinforced Earth [2012] NSWSC 458 SkyMesh Pty Ltd v Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 696 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: RSA (Moorvale Station) Pty Ltd (plaintiff) VDM CCE Pty Ltd (first defendant) VDM Group Ltd (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Rudge SC with E Cowpe (plaintiff) F P Hicks (defendants) Solicitors: James Beatty & Associates (plaintiff) Wotton & Kearney as town agents for Talbot Olivier (defendants) File Number(s): SC 2011/57243 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