ByLawyers News and Updates

New subpoena case – ACT

by

A new subpoena case has been added to the By Lawyers reference manual 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Instyle Estate Agents Guhgahlin Pty Ltd v Hambrook [2020] ACTSC (26 October 2020) the court set aside a number of subpoenas in a civil matter, following Federal, NSW and previous ACT authorities.

The decision is particularly useful because it canvasses the plaintiffs’ four separate grounds for objection to the subpoenas, namely:

  • that they lacked a legitimate forensic purpose;
  • that they in effect sought discovery from non-parties, or alternatively, the terms of the subpoenas were impermissibly wide so as to constitute ‘fishing’;
  • that the terms of the schedules to each subpoena were so wide as to be oppressive; and
  • that the issuing party failed to pay both conduct money and money for the reasonable expenses of production.

McWilliam AsJ discussed and determined the court’s power and the applicable legal principles in respect of each of those grounds of objection.

This new subpoena case augments the many cases from all Australian jurisdictions to which links are provided in this helpful publication publication. It will particularly assist ACT practitioners in understanding and applying the law on subpoena objections.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in the Reference Materials folder on the matter plan in every By Lawyers litigation publication.

Subpoena objections – FED

by

New cases on subpoena objections in the Federal jurisdiction have been added to the By Lawyers reference guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review under s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (No 3) [2020] FCA 634 the Federal Court affirmed McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233 and also Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 364 to the effect that:

  • a request for a subpoena cannot be used to disguise an application for discovery of documents, or as an alternative to an application for further and better discovery;
  • documents for production must be identified with reasonable particularity;
  • the material sought must have an adjectival relevance, that is, an apparent relevance to the issues in the principal proceedings; there must be a legitimate forensic purpose for the production of documents;
  • a mere ‘fishing’ exercise can never justify the issue of subpoenas;
  • a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents of doubtful relevance at great inconvenience to, or that risk compromising the commercial privacy of, a third party, may not readily attract the grant of leave; and
  • the issue of the subpoena must not, in all the circumstances, be oppressive in terms of its impact on the recipient.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in all By Lawyers litigation guides. It can assist practitioners with issuing and responding to subpoenas in all jurisdictions including the various grounds for subpoena objections.

Connect with us