Currently working on an assignment which includes discovery and it reminded me of a situation I witnessed a few years ago.
Hypothetical question totally unrelated to assignment however inquiring minds 🤔
The plaintiff attended the Magistrates Court on the workcover list.
The defendant's lawyer apparently had surveillance footage which was subsequent to some that had been shared between parties previously.
The legitimacy of the original surveillance as shared with the plaintiff was called into question.
The plaintiff and their lawyer was advised of the additional surveillance "at the court door" however, the plaintiff was advised that the only time they would be able to view it was as it was being played before the Court.
Isn't the concept of discovery to avoid surprises such as this?
If the defendent and/or their legal representation were aware of the existence of this surveillance, as per the ongoing obligations, shouldn't they have disclosed such earlier than the day of the hearing?
Hypothetical question totally unrelated to assignment however inquiring minds 🤔
The plaintiff attended the Magistrates Court on the workcover list.
The defendant's lawyer apparently had surveillance footage which was subsequent to some that had been shared between parties previously.
The legitimacy of the original surveillance as shared with the plaintiff was called into question.
The plaintiff and their lawyer was advised of the additional surveillance "at the court door" however, the plaintiff was advised that the only time they would be able to view it was as it was being played before the Court.
Isn't the concept of discovery to avoid surprises such as this?
If the defendent and/or their legal representation were aware of the existence of this surveillance, as per the ongoing obligations, shouldn't they have disclosed such earlier than the day of the hearing?
