LawforAll

▼
Saturday, March 31, 2012

Supreme Court of New South Wales On 11 April 2011, the defendant, who now resides in New South Wales, commenced proceedings in the Dust Diseases Tribunal ( the DDT ) against the plaintiff, a New Zealand company, claiming that the plaintiff had negligently manufactured and supplied asbestos building products which had released asbestos dust and fibre which he had inhaled while working with his father from about 1968 to 1974 in New Zealand ( the DDT Statement of Claim ). The defendant purported to serve the DDT Statement of Claim on the plaintiff at its registered office in New Zealand. By summons filed in this Court on 21 November 2011, the plaintiff seeks an order setting aside service of the DDT Statement of Claim or an order staying the proceedings on the basis that the DDT is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the defendant's claim.-The orders I make are: (1) Set aside service of the defendant's statement of claim filed in the Dust Diseases Tribunal, proceedings No. DDT 96 of 2011 ( the DDT Statement of Claim ). (2) Declare that the Dust Diseases Tribunal has no power to hear or decide proceedings No. DDT 96 of 2011. (3) Declare that the Dust Diseases Tribunal is not a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the defendant's claim for damages against the plaintiff for damages for dust-related injuries as set out in the DDT Statement of Claim. (4) Order that, unless an application for a different order is made within seven days, each party is to pay their own costs of these proceedings. (5) Direct that, unless an application for a different form of direction is made within seven days, the defendant is to include a copy of these reasons, for the attention of the Registrar, together with any originating process in this Court in which substantially the same allegations are made as in the DDT Statement of Claim.

›
Studorp Ltd v Lance John Robinson [2012] NSWSC 148 (1  March 2012) Last Updated: 6 March 2012 Supreme Court New South Wales ...

Supreme Court of New South Wales There are two further interlocutory motions before this court for determination. By notice of motion filed 2 September 2011, the second defendant seeks firstly, an order pursuant to Rule 21.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 ("UCPR") that the plaintiff provide discovery of the documents within the classes identified in the Schedule; and secondly, an order that the time for the second defendant to serve his evidence be extended to thirty (30) days after the plaintiff has provided discovery. If further discovery is granted, the plaintiff does not oppose the extension of 30 days for the second defendant to serve his evidence. By amended notice of motion filed 10 November 2011, the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order pursuant to UCPR 21.1 that the plaintiff have leave within seven days of the date of this order to file and serve interrogatories in the form attached to the letter dated 8 September 2011 from the plaintiff's solicitors to the second defendant's solicitors; secondly, that by 4.00 pm on 13 October 2011 (now past) the second defendant file and serve on the plaintiff answers to the interrogatories served pursuant to order one; and thirdly, pursuant to UCPR 33.8 the plaintiff be permitted to inspect and take a photocopy of the email dated 6 October 2009 from Foo Wong to Steven Agosta (the email) referred to in paragraph 13 of the affidavit of Steven Peter Agosta sworn 20 October 2011. There are three topics to be covered in this judgment, interrogatories, whether the email is the subject of legal professional privilege, and finally, whether there should be further discovery. I shall deal with these topics in order.-The orders I make are: (1) The second defendant's notice of motion filed 2 September 2011 is dismissed. (2) Mr Ho is to answer interrogatories 28 and 29 within 14 days. (3) Access to the plaintiff to the email dated 6 October 2009 from Foo Wong to Steven Agosta is refused. (4) Costs are reserved. **********

›
La Doria Spa v Global Resourcing Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC  144 (1 March 2012) Last Updated: 5 March 2012 Supreme Court New So...