Ballard v Multiplex Limited - [2010] NSWSC 1038

CITATION: Ballard v Multiplex Limited [2010] NSWSC 1038

HEARING DATE(S): 8 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ

DECISION: Subpoena to ASIC set aside.
Costs of ASIC of setting aside subpoena to be paid by First and Second Defendants.

CATCHWORDS: CONSTRUCTION - setting aside subpoena to ASIC to produce reasons and orders for disqualification from managing corporations for 18 months of important witness and transcript of his hearing before ASIC - no apparent connection between subject matter before ASIC and evidence sought to be adduced in Plaintiff's action - documents sought as relevant to credit

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Fried v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 911
Liristis v Gadelrabb [2009] NSWSC 441
Thomas v SMP (International) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 870

PARTIES: David Ballard (Plaintiff)
Multiplex Limited (First Defendant)
Multiplex Corporate Agency Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (Third Defendant)
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, NSW Branch (Fourth Defendant)
Andrew Ferguson (Fifth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/266587

COUNSEL: K Stern (for ASIC)
AJL Bannon SC, JG Duncan & E Elbourne (Plaintiff)
I Pike (with Dr A Bell SC) (First & Second Defendants)
BC Oslington QC and JH Pearce (Third, Fourth &Fifth Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Conrad Gray (ASIC)
Sagacious Legal (Plaintiff)
Clayton Utz (First & Second Defendants)
Taylor & Scott (Third, Fourth & Fifth Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

Smart AJ

Monday 13 September 2010

2007/266587 David Ballard v Multiplex Ltd & Ors

JUDGMENT

1 The first and second defendants have caused a subpoena to be issued addressed to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”). As amended, the subpoena requires ASIC to produce:

~~(i) any correspondence passing between the Commission and Mr Ian Widdup regarding Mr Widdup’s disqualification from managing corporations announced on 18 April 2008 (a copy attached) (~~

~~Disqualification~~

(ii) any reasons prepared and ~~/or~~ any orders made by the Commission regarding Mr Widdup’s Disqualification.

(iii) the transcript of any hearing conducted by the Commission in relation to ~~examination of~~ Mr Widdup ’s ~~in relation to his D~~ disqualification from managing corporations announced on 18 April 2008 (a copy attached).

~~(iv) the transcript of any examination of any other person in relation to any enquiry into Mr Widdup’s Disqualification~~ .

~~(v) any submissions made by or on behalf of Mr Widdup in respect his Disqualification.~~

2 On the ASIC website it was recorded on Friday 18 April 2008 that, during March 2008, ASIC disqualified Mr Ian Widdup following his involvement in failed companies. The entry reads:

“ASIC disqualified property developer, Mr Ian Paul Widdup, of Pyrmont, New South Wales, from managing corporations for 18 months.

Mr Widdup’s disqualification follows an ASIC investigation into his role in three failed companies, Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd, Bauhaus Pyrmont Pty Ltd and Pilot Developments Pty Ltd.

ASIC found that Beacon Development…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ballard v Multiplex Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 1038
Decision Date: 13 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ballard brought an action against Multiplex Limited, an important construction company, concerning allegations of fraudulent conduct. The dispute arose from a complex web of contractual agreements and potential breaches of fiduciary duty. The court was tasked with determining whether a subpoena served on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) could be set aside, compelling ASIC to produce reasons and orders for disqualifying an important witness from managing corporations for 18 months, along with the transcript of his hearing before ASIC. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the subpoena, which sought documents that appeared unrelated to the subject matter of the ASIC proceedings, could be enforced. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the documents were relevant to the Plaintiff's claim and whether the subpoena was an abuse of process.

The court considered the scope and relevance of the documents sought in the subpoena. It found that there was no apparent connection between the subject matter before ASIC and the evidence sought to be adduced in the Plaintiff's action. The court noted that the documents were sought as relevant to the credit of the witness, but the court found this to be an insufficient basis to compel their production. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any subpoena issued was directly relevant to the proceedings and did not constitute an abuse of process by seeking extraneous information. Given this, the court concluded that the subpoena was an abuse of process and set it aside. The court's decision was grounded in the need to protect the integrity of the legal process and prevent unnecessary intrusions into unrelated regulatory proceedings.

The court's reasoning led to a clear outcome: the subpoena was set aside, and the documents sought were deemed not relevant or necessary for the Plaintiff's action. The court's decision reinforced the principle that subpoenas must be strictly relevant to the proceedings and not used as a means to circumvent the proper scope of litigation. This ruling serves as an important reminder to parties and their legal representatives of the boundaries within which subpoenas must operate to ensure a fair and efficient legal process.

Orders