Home | © 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners


Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1392. Davies J. 

21 As far as the interrogatories being "necessary" are concerned, Rothman J said in Chong v Nguyen [2005] NSWSC 588:

 [16] The word "necessary" when used in relation to a requirement on the exercise of a power granted to a court should generally and does here mean "reasonably required or legally ancillary" to the achievement of the goal, in this case, of a fair trial. I refer to the joint judgment of Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ in Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435 which, while determining whether there was a valid basis for contempt proceedings, examined the power of the District Court to issue injunctive relief. They said: 

The term 'necessary' in such a setting as this is to be understood in the sense given it by Pollock CB in Attorney-General v Walker (1849) 3 Ex 242, namely as identifying a power to make orders which are reasonably required or legally ancillary to the accomplishment of the specific remedies for enforcement provided in Division 4 of Part 3 of the District Court Act. In this setting, the term 'necessary' does not have the meaning of 'essential'; rather it is to be 'subjected to the touchstone of reasonableness' (State Drug Crime Commission of NSW v Chapman (1987) 12 NSWLR 477 at 452). 

22 He noted also at [14] that the overwhelming authoritative view is that the Court must be satisfied that the order is "necessary in the interests of a fair trial".

Previous page: Nature and conditions     Next page: Negligence

© 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample