Legal Research
Cases
A Pty Ltd v Z

A Pty Ltd v Z

Case [2007] NSWSC 999 6 September 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999

HEARING DATE(S): 7, 24 August 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 September 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

DECISION: Exemption from prohibition on disclosure of telephone intercept information that has previously been disclosed in an exempt proceeding is limited to the information so disclosed and does not extend to associated information. Production of material subject to statutory privilege cannot be required. Orders made limiting obligation of recipient of subpoena.

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE – Subpoenas – Confidentiality & Disclosure – restricted material – information obtained under Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act – where transcripts have already been given in evidence in an exempt proceeding – whether audio tapes may now be given – Privilege – statutory privilege – information obtained or produced pursuant to New South Wales Crime Commission Act - COSTS – discretionary considerations – where successful objection only raised on second day of hearing – costs exacerbated by both parties – distinction between costs of compliance with, and costs of unsuccessful application to set aside, subpoena

LEGISLATION CITED: (CTH) Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act 1979 ss 5B, 6E, 63, 74, 75A
(NSW) New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 ss 27A, 29
(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 33.4, 33.11

CASES CITED: A v Z [2007] NSWSC 899
ACP Magazines Pty Ltd v Motion [2000] NSWSC 1169, [34]; Re Bauhaus Pyrmont
Darcey v Pre-Term Foundation Clinic [1983] 2 NSWLR 497
Deposit & Investment Co Limited (Receivers Appointed) v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (1996) 39 NSWLR 267
J Aron Corporation v Newmont Yandal Operations [2004] NSWSC 996
Kumagai Australia Finance v Avarton Ltd (NSWSC, Bryson J, 7 June 1991, unreported)
Mancorp Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd (SASC, Debelle J, 5 March 1993, unreported)
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 77
R v Barbaro (1992) 108 ACTR 1
Re Bauhaus Pyrmont Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] NSWSC 879

PARTIES: "A" Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Mr "Z" (first defendant)
Mrs "Z" (second defendant)
NSW Commissioner for Police (applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3217/06

COUNSEL: Ms J Ghabrial (plaintiff)
Mr M Kelly (solicitor) (defendants)
Ms England (NSW Commissioner for Police)

SOLICITORS: Xenos Lawyers (plaintiff)
Kemp Strang (defendants)
Crown Solicitor (NSW Commissioner for Police)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Thursday, 6 September 2007

3217/06 A Pty Ltd v Z

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 4 July 2007, I rejected the contention of the applicant Commissioner for Police that there was no legitimate forensic purpose for the issue of a subpoena dated 9 March 2007 by the plaintiff A Pty Ltd calling for the documents in paragraphs 1-4 inclusive, 6 and 7 of the schedule to that subpoena, on the footing that those paragraphs were read down in accordance with a letter of 3 April 2007 (Exhibit RX03) – but subject to the objection that provision of those documents to the court and their use in evidence would be prohibited by (CTH) Telecommunications…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A Pty Ltd v Z

Details

AGLC: A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999
Case: [2007] NSWSC 999
Decision Date: 6 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of A Pty Ltd v Z, the parties were A Pty Ltd and Z, and the dispute involved subpoenas, confidentiality, disclosure of restricted material, and privilege issues. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus was on whether audio tapes, which were obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act, could be introduced into evidence in a criminal proceeding where transcripts had already been given. Additionally, the case examined statutory privilege under the New South Wales Crime Commission Act.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of the audio tapes and the extent to which statutory privilege could protect information obtained or produced under the New South Wales Crime Commission Act. The court had to determine whether the privilege applied to the audio tapes and if the tapes could be excluded from evidence. The case also addressed the costs associated with the subpoenas, particularly focusing on the discretionary considerations when costs were exacerbated by both parties. The court examined whether the costs should be attributed to compliance with the subpoena or to the unsuccessful application to set aside the subpoena.

The court ruled that the audio tapes could not be introduced into evidence as they had already been disclosed through transcripts in the exempt proceeding. The court further found that the statutory privilege under the New South Wales Crime Commission Act applied, and the information could not be disclosed. Regarding costs, the court held that the successful objection raised on the second day of the hearing, combined with the exacerbated costs by both parties, warranted a specific allocation of costs. The costs were attributed to compliance with the subpoena rather than the unsuccessful application to set aside the subpoena. This decision underscores the importance of timely objections and the consequences of exacerbating costs in legal proceedings.

Orders