J. King

During a Commercial List case conference in a complex multi‑party commercial dispute, the court addressed ongoing discovery and production issues among numerous defendants and third parties.

The court directed timelines for outstanding undertakings and warned that unresolved production disputes would require formal motions before a Master.

The court emphasized counsel’s obligation to cooperate in resolving discovery issues and indicated that failure to do so could result in elevated or full indemnity costs.

Additional guidance was provided regarding potential motions for non‑party examinations and production of partnership financial statements.

The court scheduled a further case conference and noted that the matter would not proceed to trial as early as previously anticipated due to outstanding discovery issues.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of a medical report following a defence medical examination conducted by a paediatric neurologist.

The defendant refused to produce the report on the basis that the examination was incomplete and that the expert could not provide a fair and objective opinion due to the circumstances of the assessment and subsequent interview.

The court considered Rule 33.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an examining health practitioner to prepare and provide a written report after conducting an examination.

The court held that once the examination occurred, the rule imposed a mandatory obligation to produce a report, regardless of concerns about completeness.

The expert could qualify the report and explain limitations, but production remained required.