STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ANTHONY HAMOD

MASON P: The claim with regard to malicious prosecution raises issues that include whether the proceedings were launched (by the arresting officers) and maintained (by the Commissioner of Police and DPP) without reasonable or probable cause. It has not been shown that the classes of documents required to be discovered lack relevance to this issue.

It was open to Simpson J to conclude that the documents referred to in the Amended Categories of Documents for Discovery by First Defendant ought to be discovered. Her Honour explicitly addressed the mandate of UCPR 21.2(2) as regards the need to confine discovery to what the court considered to be justified in the circumstances.

The judge did not overlook the potential oppressiveness of the discovery order. There was however, no evidence on this topic when the matter was heard. Her Honour’s order, being interlocutory, is capable of being revisited if evidence is adduced as to particular or unexpected problems that might arise (cf Sroka v Gorbal & Scott (1980) 25 SASR 356, a case involving interrogatories).

This was an interlocutory decision on a matter of practice and procedure. applying well-known principles. The case for appellate intervention has not been established.

McCOLL JA: I agree.

CAMPBELL JA: I agree.

MASON P: The summons is dismissed with costs.