Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Kaech v Collins

 

[2006] QSC 87

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JONES J

Claim No 156 of 2005

 

FRANZ KAECH and  Plaintiffs
HANNI KAECH

and

CHRISTOPHER JOHN COLLINSFirst Defendant

And

THYMANIA PTY LTDSecond Defendant

 

 

CAIRNS

..DATE 03/03/2006

 

[1] HIS HONOUR:  This is an application by the plaintiffs in the action seeking orders firstly for the production of copies of documents already inspected and, secondly, to produce a document which was used to generate a facsimile transmission. The document in question is an Information Statement required to be generated pursuant to section 206 of the Body Corporate Management Act.

[2] There is no reason why either of these documents should not be produced in the ordinary course of the progress of an action to trial. In relation to the copies of the documents already inspected a request was made for copies to be produced on the 13th of January 2006 and that request was not responded to. The plaintiffs say that this application was made necessary by reason of that failure.

[3] The application in its terms sought the production of the original document, the signed information statement. When the matter came before me today the demand has changed to read, ''A contract and associated documents in the form they took when received by facsimile transmission from the plaintiffs.'' So in a sense there has been a slight change between the wording of the application and the order that is now sought. The purpose for seeking the order in those terms is to go to the issue that there was a forgery of the signatory in the information document. That issue, it seems to me, has been clearly identified on the exchanges between the parties to date.

[4] In those circumstances I will make the orders in terms of the draft initialled by me. I will also make an order that the first defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis since it seems that the application was inevitable in any event but the change in the nature of the documents sought was more of an incident nature than one that would have prevented the application being made in any event.

[5] HIS HONOUR: I direct that the terms of the order relating to the production of documents be complied with in 14 days.

[6] HIS HONOUR: There is no guillotine order.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Kaech v Collins & Thymania Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Kaech v Collins

  • MNC:

    [2006] QSC 87

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Jones J

  • Date:

    03 Mar 2006

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status