The New South Wales Greyhound Breeders Owners & Trainers Association Limited v Attorney General of NSW

This matter is before me for directions at the first return date of the summons filed on 29 July 2016 by the New South Wales Greyhounds Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association Limited (the plaintiff). The plaintiff seeks orders against the Attorney General of New South Wales (the first defendant) and the Honourable Michael McHugh in his capacity as Commissioner appointed under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 (NSW) (the second defendant). The orders sought are, principally, a declaration that a report dated 16 June 2016 of the Special Commission of Inquiry prepared by the second defendant at the request of the first defendant into the greyhound racing industry is invalid and of no effect because it was beyond the jurisdiction of the second defendant.

Mr Bennett QC, who appears with Mr Tokley SC and Mr Flecknoe-Brown on behalf of the plaintiff, seeks orders in terms of short minutes, which include an order for discovery of several categories of documents. Mr Hutley SC, who appears with Mr Lim on behalf of the first defendant, contends that it would be inappropriate to order discovery of such categories having regard to the issues in dispute and the nature of the proceedings, not to mention the significant expense of costs and time in assembling all the documents sought.

By way of illustration I will refer to the plaintiff’s category 2(a), which seeks discovery of all written submissions and other documents provided to the Special Commission by Greyhounds Australasia including, but not limited to, response 21 to Breeding Issues Paper dated 23 November 2015.

It appears, having regard to the index to the three volume report provided by Mr Hutley (MFI 1) that to require discovery of such documents will require the production of a significant quantity of documents, the vast majority of which is likely to be wholly irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim for relief. Insofar as Mr Bennett identifies a “no evidence” ground as the basis for the plaintiff's case, Mr Hutley proposes that such a ground could be more reasonably and efficiently dealt with by an order for discovery in due course which requires the defendants to provide such documents as the defendants contend are relevant to, and constitute evidence in support of, a particular finding on a particular topic.

I am satisfied that the short minutes of order provided by the first defendant will accommodate the matters raised by the plaintiff in Mr Bennett’s short opening of the plaintiff’s case and that they will advance the proceedings in a more efficient and cost-effective way than the short minutes of order provided by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, I make the following orders: