Legal Research
Cases
Darbyshire v Gilbert

Darbyshire v Gilbert

Case [2006] WASCA 13 23 January 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE as Executor of the Will of MARGARET GILBERT & ANOR -v- GILBERT [2006] WASCA 13

Reported Decision:	(2006) 31 WAR 558
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASCA 13
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:163/2005	Heard:	23 JANUARY 2006
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	23/01/06
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE as Executor of the Will of MARGARET GILBERT JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE GARY DUNCAN GILBERT
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Subpoena Early return of subpoena duces tecem Principles governing application Whether order should be made if evidence to be given at hearing of originating summons to be by way of affidavit
Legislation:	Rules of The Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36 r 2(3), O 36 r 12(4), O 36 r 13, O 58 r 12
Case References:	Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101 Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1993) 11 WAR 159 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 3 SR NSW 564 National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 Qd R 686 Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE as Executor of the Will of MARGARET GILBERT & ANOR -v- GILBERT [2006] WASCA 13 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 23 JANUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 23 JANUARY 2006 FILE NO/S : CACV 163 of 2005 BETWEEN : JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE as Executor of the Will of MARGARET GILBERT

JANIFER ANN DARBYSHIRE

Appellants

AND

GARY DUNCAN GILBERT

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : COMMISSIONER SANDERSON

File No : CIV 1311 of 2005

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Subpoena - Early return of subpoena duces tecem - Principles governing application - Whether order should be made if evidence to be given at hearing of originating summons to be by way of affidavit

Legislation:

Rules of The Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36 r 2(3), O 36 r 12(4), O 36 r 13, O 58 r 12

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : Mr G T Stubbs

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellants : Dwyer Durack

Respondent : Cameron Eastwood

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101
Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98
Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1993) 11 WAR 159
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 3 SR NSW 564
National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill [1978] 1…

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 Darbyshire v Gilbert

Details

AGLC: Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13
Case: [2006] WASCA 13
Decision Date: 23 JANUARY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darbyshire v Gilbert was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary parties involved were Darbyshire, the applicant, and Gilbert, the respondent. The dispute arose from an application for an order under the Federal Court Rules, specifically regarding the early return of a subpoena duces tecem. The subpoena was intended to compel the production of documents that were central to the applicant's case. The applicant sought an order to have the documents returned earlier than the standard period provided by the rules.

The legal issues before the court were whether the principles governing the application for an early return of a subpoena duces tecem should be applied in this case and, if so, whether an order should be made given that the evidence to be given at the hearing of the originating summons would be by way of affidavit. The court had to consider the balance between the need for timely access to the documents and the respondent's rights to a fair opportunity to prepare their case. Furthermore, the court examined the circumstances in which an early return of the subpoenaed documents might be warranted.

In determining the matter, the court considered the standard principles that guide such applications. It acknowledged the importance of timely access to necessary documents but also emphasised the necessity for the respondent to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare their case. The court concluded that, while the circumstances warranted an early return of the documents, the fact that evidence would be given by affidavit at the hearing of the originating summons did not automatically justify such an order. Ultimately, the court ruled that an order for the early return of the subpoena duces tecem was not appropriate in this case. The leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13

Most Recent Citation

Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd v UDP Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 183

Cases citing this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Mineral Resources Limited v Vlajsavljevich
[2023] WASC 415 Para 1

…extends to material which may relate to the cross-examination of a witness, including documents which relate only to credit ( Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13 [14]); (d) in determining whether the documents have apparent relevance to the issues in the proceedings, the court must consider the issues that poten…
Mineral Resources Limited v Destec Pty Ltd [No 2]
[2021] WASC 357

…Ltd (No 2) [2013] WASC 368 Boase v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [No 3] [2012] WASC 498 BWS v ARV [No 2] [2021] WASCA 62 Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13 Green v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [No 2] [2020] WASC 485 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock [2013] WASC 290 Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Ti…
Hongkong Xinhe International Investment Company Ltd v Bullseye Mining Ltd [No 4]
[2021] WASC 287 Para 2

…Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 [15]. [4] Green v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] WASC 485 [9]. [5] Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13 [14]. [6] Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 250, 254. [7] Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Han…
Van Duren v Hammond & Roberts Pty Ltd
[2017] WASC 308 Para 6

…The defendant refers to Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13; (2006) 31 WAR 558 [16] - [17] where Pullin JA, with whom Roberts-Smith JA agreed, said that the fact that the documents had earlier been sought on discovery, and refused, did not prevent them being obtained by subpoena from a third party.…
Fingal Pastoral Pty Ltd v Page Seager Lawyers (A Firm)
[2017] TASSC 24 Para 4

…gitimate forensic purpose: see, for example, Fried v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 911; (2000) 175 ALR 194 at 200 [29]; Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13; (2006) 31 WAR 558 at [14] and Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50 at [9]. In Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer…
Donaldson v Nolan [No 3]
[2015] WASC 194 Para 9

…]. [21] Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101; [2003] ATPR 41 ‑ 956 [8]. [22] Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13; (2006) 31 WAR 558 [13] (Pullin JA, Roberts‑Smith JA agreeing).…
Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd v UDP Holdings Pty Ltd
[2015] VSC 183

…ensic purpose: Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority ;[9] Darbyshire v Gilbert .[10] [9][2006] WASCA 185 (15 June 2006) [18], [68]. [10](2006) 31 WAR 558 at 561 [14] (“ Darbyshire ”). [21] There is a legitimate forensic purpose for the issue of a subpoena of documents in respect of a document or class of…
HSBC Bank Australia Ltd v Mavaddat
[2015] WASC 153 Para 3

…f leave to commence the application. See also: Wookey v Quigley [No 5] [2011] WASC 275 [36] ‑ [37] (Kenneth Martin J). [137] Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13; (2006) 31 WAR 558 [15] (Pullin JA, with whom Roberts‑Smith JA agreed); Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185 [19] ‑ [22] (S…
Goldie v Gordon Theodore HOTHERSHALL Getley as Executor of the Estate of Janet May Goldie [No 2]
[2010] WASC 66 Para 1

…issued for a legitimate forensic purpose: see, for example, Fried v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 175 ALR 194 at 200 [29]; Darbyshire v Gilbert (2006) 31 WAR 558 at [14] and Stanley … at [9]. In Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] ATPR 41-956 at [8] (cited with approva…
Alinta Sales Pty Ltd v Woodside Energy Ltd
[2008] WASC 304

…stralian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] ATPR 41-956 Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185 Darbyshire v Gilbert (2006) 31 WAR 558 Queensland Power Trading Corp v Xstrata Queensland Ltd [2005] QCA 477 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50…
Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2007] WASC 276

…(No 5) [2006] FCA 1234; (2006) 155 FCR 30; (2006) 234 ALR 651 Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185 Darbyshire v Gilbert [2006] WASCA 13; (2006) 31 WAR 558 Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83 Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50…

View all 11 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 5 of 5 shown

Stanley v Layne Christensen Co
[2004] WASCA 50

…72 R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 Qd R 686 Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50…
Australian Gas Light Company v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
[2003] FCA 1101

…Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101 Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1993) 11 WAR 159 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 3 SR NSW 564 National Employers' Mutual General Association L…
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40

…al Association Ltd v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 Qd R 686 Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50…
Alister v the Queen
[1984] HCA 85

…Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101 Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1993) 11 WAR 159 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 3 SR NSW 564 National Employers' Mutual General Associat…
Commissioner for Railways v Small
(1938) 38 SR 564

…mission [2003] FCA 1101 Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1993) 11 WAR 159 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 3 SR NSW 564 National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 Qd R 686 Maddison v Goldrick…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA)
1 mention