Mullett v Nixon

[2022] VSCA 174

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Misfeasance in public office
3. › Elements of the tort
4. › Invalid or unauthorised act
5. › Malice
6. › Whether suspension of police officer done maliciously
7. › Whether respondents acted for ulterior purpose
1. Torts
2. › Malicious prosecution
3. › Elements of the tort
4. › Malice
5. › Reasonable and probable cause
6. › Subjective and objective limbs
7. › Whether respondents acted maliciously in initiating and maintaining criminal proceedings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Discovery
3. › Obligations of discovery
4. › Scope of discoverable documents
5. › Whether documents relating to related police operation were discoverable
6. › Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), r 29.01.1(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Disclosure obligations
3. › Overarching obligation to disclose critical documents
4. › Construction of 'critical to the resolution of the dispute'
5. › Relationship between disclosure obligation and discovery obligation
6. › Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), s 26(1)

Quick Take

The obligation to disclose 'critical' documents under s 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) is narrower than the obligation to give discovery under r 29.01.1(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). Critical documents are those which are crucial to each party's case and which, if produced, are the most likely to lead to resolution of the dispute by early settlement or at trial. A person applying the test should consider whether a reasonable opposing party would want to see the document at an early stage to assess compromise or avoid surprise at trial. The Court of Appeal's construction differs from that adopted in Yunghanns v Colquhoun-Denvers [2021] VSC 243.