CITATION: Boland v Dillon; Cush v Dillon (No. 3) [2007] NSWDC 78 HEARING DATE(S): 13/04/07 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 13 April 2007 JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ DECISION: (1) Orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion setting aside the Notice to Produce returnable 23 March 2007; (2) The plaintiff and defendant are, within 28 days, to give discovery of all documents relevant to disputed issues of fact in the section 7A jury trial (including but not limited to publication) from an inspection of such documents to take place 14 days thereafter; (3) Set the matter down for hearing as a 2 day section 7A jury trial for 5 November 2007. CATCHWORDS: Defamation – subpoena issued prior to section 7A jury trial – whether documents outside the scope of the section 7A trial sought – whether subpoena objectionable in form, oppressive, a fishing expedition or a substitute for discovery LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s. 7A CASES CITED: Bailey & Others v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136
New South Wales Commissioner of Police v Tuxford (2002) NSWCA 139
Scott v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2005) NSWSC 169PARTIES: Plaintiff: Leslie Boland
Plaintiff: Amanda Cush
Defendant: Meryl Lurline DillonFILE NUMBER(S): 4917/06; 4735/06 COUNSEL: Plaintiffs: P Sibtain
Defendant: M LynchSOLICITORS: Plaintiffs: Etheringtons Solicitors
Defendant: Banki Haddock Fiora Lawyers
1 HER HONOUR: The defendant by way of notice of motion filed on 21 March 2007 seeks the following orders:
1. The notice to produce issued at the request of the plaintiff dated 14 March 2007 be set aside on the grounds that:
(b) it has not demonstrated legitimate forensic purpose.(a) it is an abuse of process, and;
The notice of motion also seeks further orders including costs.
2 The relevant notice to produce, which was issued on 14 March returnable for 23 March, seeks the following documents which include but are not limited to any documents stored in electronic form including SMS phone messages, deleted emails or documents contained in any computer:
- 1. All documents created for the purpose or as a result of the meetings of the Border Rivers - Gwydar Catchment Management Authority on:
(a) 21 January 2005
(b) 18 February 2005
(d) 18 August 2005(c) 8 April 2005
3. All documents created referring to the revision of funds to Meryl Lurline Dillon on account of litigation between herself and Leslie Frances Boland or litigation between herself and Amanda Cush.
2. All documents created up to 18 February 2006 referring to a relationship of any kind between Leslie Frances Boland and Amanda Cush, including but not limited to records of conversation with James Croft and Michelle Chittenden prior to that date.
3 First I must note that these are proceedings for defamation and the issue before the court on which the notice to produce is asserted to have forensic purpose is a s 7A jury trial which is set down for hearing later this year. The circumstances…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Boland v Dillon; Cush v Dillon (No. 3) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWDC 78
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the documents sought by the subpoena were outside the scope of the section 7A jury trial and whether the subpoena was objectionable in form, oppressive, amounted to a fishing expedition, or served as a substitute for discovery. The court needed to determine the appropriate scope of discovery in the context of a defamation trial and ensure that the subpoena complied with the relevant legal standards.
The court found that the subpoena was objectionable in form and oppressive, and it was issued prior to the commencement of the section 7A jury trial, which made it premature. The subpoena was also considered to be a fishing expedition as it was overly broad and not narrowly tailored to the issues at hand. The court set aside the subpoena and ordered the parties to provide discovery of all relevant documents within a specified timeframe. The matter was then scheduled for a two-day section 7A jury trial.
The final orders of the court were to set aside the subpoena and order the parties to provide discovery of all relevant documents within 28 days, with an inspection to follow 14 days later. The court also set the matter down for hearing as a two-day section 7A jury trial scheduled for 5 November 2007.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion setting aside the Notice to Produce returnable 23 March 2007; (2) The plaintiff and defendant are, within 28 days, to give discovery of all documents relevant to disputed issues of fact in the section 7A jury trial (including but not limited to publication) from an inspection of such documents to take place 14 days thereafter; (3) Set the matter down for hearing as a 2 day section 7A jury trial for 5 November 2007.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.