FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner [2019] FCA 461
File number(s): NSD 2221 of 2016 Judge(s): BROMWICH J Date of judgment: 5 April 2019 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoenas for production – where first respondent raised objections to applicants accessing material produced – whether apparent relevance established – whether scope appropriate – held: objections rejected Legislation: Federal Court of Australia, Subpoenas and Notices to Produce Practice Note (GPN-SUBP) Cases cited: Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; 182 A Crim R 536
Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd v BlueScope Ltd [2010] FCA 739
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 5) [2005] FCA 510; 216 ALR 147
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd [1989] FCA 340; 88 ALR 90
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 14 February 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 17 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr S D’Emilio of SD Commercial Lawyers Pty Ltd Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr A W Sandbach Solicitor for the First Respondent: AJH Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent on the interlocutory application did not file submissions ORDERS
NSD 2221 of 2016 BETWEEN: CENTRAL INNOVATION PTY LTD
First Applicant
INTERCAD PTY LTD
Second Applicant
AND: GARY GARNER
First Respondent
N C CADCAM SYSTEMS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 MARCH 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent’s objections to the applicants having access to the material produced on subpoena by Discount Domain Name Services Pty Ltd (DDNS) and by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) be rejected.
2.The applicants have access forthwith to the material produced on subpoena by DDNS and by Telstra.
3.The first respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the process from when objection was first taken by him to the subpoenas addressed to DDNS, to Telstra and to Microsoft Pty Ltd.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BROMWICH J:
On 26 March 2019, I made the following orders, with reasons to follow:
1.The first respondent’s objections to the applicants having access to the material produced on subpoena by Discount Domain Name Services Pty Ltd (DDNS) and by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) be rejected.
2.The applicants have access forthwith to the material produced on subpoena by DDNS and by Telstra.
3.The first respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the process from when objection was first taken by him to the subpoenas addressed to DDNS, to Telstra and to Microsoft Pty Ltd.
These are the reasons for the making of those orders, which entail the adjudication of a subpoena dispute between the applicants and the first…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner 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
- [2019] FCA 461
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established the apparent relevance of the material produced and whether the scope of the subpoenas was appropriate. The first respondent argued that the material was irrelevant and that the scope of the subpoenas was overly broad. The court had to determine whether the applicants had met the threshold of establishing apparent relevance and if the scope of the subpoenas was reasonable in the circumstances.
The court found that the applicants had established the apparent relevance of the material produced and that the scope of the subpoenas was appropriate. The court held that the first respondent's objections were without merit. The court rejected the first respondent's arguments and ordered that the objections be dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicants have immediate access to the material produced by Discount Domain Name Services Pty Ltd and Telstra Corporation Limited and that the first respondent pay the costs of the process from when the objections were first raised.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of establishing apparent relevance when seeking documents through subpoenas and the need for the scope of the subpoenas to be reasonable. The court also emphasised that the party objecting to the production of documents must demonstrate a strong case for their objection to be upheld. The final orders of the court provided clarity and direction for the parties involved and ensured that the applicants could proceed with their case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The first respondent’s objections to the applicants having access to the material produced on subpoena by Discount Domain Name Services Pty Ltd (DDNS) and by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) be rejected.
2. The applicants have access forthwith to the material produced on subpoena by DDNS and by Telstra.
3. The first respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the process from when objection was first taken by him to the subpoenas addressed to DDNS, to Telstra and to Microsoft Pty Ltd.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.