Background
The proceeding concerns a dispute among members of the Elazzi family and associated companies over the Scott Street Project, a substantial commercial property development in Liverpool. The plaintiffs allege that the parties entered a partnership or joint endeavour concerning the project, and that the defendants breached contractual and fiduciary obligations, including concerning rental income, project records and an alleged $1.6 million loan.
The plaintiffs sought discovery in 87 categories. The defendants separately sought to set aside a December 2025 notice to produce containing 64 categories, arguing that it was oppressive, insufficiently precise and improperly used as a substitute for discovery.
The Court’s Holding
Bennett J ordered discovery of the classes listed in Annexure C, including many unopposed categories and certain disputed categories relevant to the parties’ relationship, project contributions, rental income and legal arrangements. The Court refused discovery for categories that were insufficiently connected to pleaded issues, speculative, overly broad or unnecessary, including personal tax-return material for Antony and Marc and several categories concerning the alleged November loan and unrelated properties.
The Court declined to set aside the notice to produce as a whole. Although the plaintiffs’ simultaneous use of a lengthy discovery motion and overlapping notice to produce had caused unnecessary complexity and expense, targeted categories that were sufficiently specified and apparently relevant could remain. The Court set aside categories 29(b), 30(b), 36, 47, 50, 51 and 58, while requiring production of three agreed bank statements. Costs were reserved, with the Court expressing a preliminary view that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs of both motions.
Key Takeaways
- Discovery must concern documents relevant to facts in issue and reasonably necessary to resolve the real dispute.
- A notice to produce cannot be used as de facto discovery, but defects in individual categories do not necessarily invalidate the entire notice.
- Broad, speculative or imprecise requests may be refused or set aside even in complex family commercial litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Equity Division’s insistence on targeted disclosure under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the overriding purpose of just, quick and cheap resolution. Parties should avoid duplicative discovery and notice-to-produce requests, particularly where substantial overlap requires the Court to untangle large schedules of categories.