Roe v WA

[2013] WASC 130

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Discovery
3. › Further and better discovery
4. › Proportionality
5. › Whether forensic benefit of broader discovery proportionate to cost and delay
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 rr 4A, 4B
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Discovery
3. › Informal discovery in managed cases
4. › Categories of discovery
5. › Whether general discovery principles from Compagnie Financiere v Peruvian Guano apply to informal discovery

Quick Take

In cases where general discovery has not been sought or ordered and discovery proceeds informally by reference to agreed categories, the traditional Peruvian Guano test of adjectival or indirect relevance no longer determines whether documents must be discovered. Instead, the court balances the likely forensic benefit against the cost and delay, viewed in the context of the value, importance and complexity of the proceedings. Mere demonstration of relevance is insufficient; the applicant must show that further discovery would add some dimension to the proof presently available.