Darcy Peter Smith and D.P. Smith (Homes) Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council

Case •

[2007] NSWLEC 395

•

29 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Darcy Peter Smith and D.P. Smith (Homes) Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 395
PARTIES:

FIRST APPLICANT
Darcy Peter Smith

SECOND APPLICANT
D.P. Smith (Homes) Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Wyong Shire Council
FILE NUMBER(S): 40381 of 2007
CORAM: Talbot J
KEY ISSUES: Costs :- Subpoena withdrawn pursuant to agreement. Whether too broad abuse of process; no legitimate forensic purpose.
CASES CITED: Commissioner of Railways v Small (1930) 38 SR(NSW) 564;
Commonwealth of Australia v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWLEC 171;
Re The Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Of The Commonwealth Of Australia; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622
DATES OF HEARING: 13/06/07
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 
29 June 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr Eastman (Barrister)
SOLICITORS D.C.
Balog & Associates

RESPONDENT
Mr Robertson SC
SOLICITORS
Home Wilkinson Lowry


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Talbot J

      29 June 2007

      40381 of 2007 Smith Darcy Peter and DP Smith (Homes) Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council

      JUDGMENT

1 Talbot J: In these interlocutory proceedings the respondent council challenged a subpoena issued by the applicant seeking production of a wide range of documents relating to the Bateau Bay Landfill and its rehabilitation and associated activities. After preliminary argument and an adjournment the subpoena was withdrawn pursuant to an agreement. The question of costs is not resolved and the council seeks its costs in relation to the subpoena.

2 The subpoena was issued on 11 May 2007. Despite the respondent producing 8 boxes of documents subject to resolution of questions of privilege some documents were made available for inspection by the applicant. However at all times the council’s solicitor maintained an objection that the terms of the subpoena were too broad and oppressive.

3 By Notice of Motion dated 31 May 2007 the council sought orders setting aside certain paragraphs of the subpoena on the following grounds:

          (a) the subpoena is an abuse of process;
          (b) the subpoena does not describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity;
          (c ) many of the documents sought can have no conceivable relevance to the proceedings, and the subpoena lacks any legitimate forensic purpose; and

      (d) the subpoena is oppressive.

4 The principles for setting aside a subpoena are well known (Commissioner of Railways v Small (1930) 38 SR (NSW) 564).

5 The applicant has never identified a legitimate forensic purpose for production of the documents which, was required before points of defence have been filed and issues joined. Moreover on its face the terms of the subpoena were too broad, lack specificity and required value judgments to be made. Accordingly the prospect is that the subpoena would have been set aside in significant respects.

6 The applicant relied on the inherent capacity of the council, as recipient of the subpoena, to produce documents within the various categories referring to or relating to the management of waste collection and disposal in its area. That fact does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to be sufficiently concise to identify the relevance to the proceedings. (Commonwealth of Australia v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWLEC 171).

7 The findings by McHugh J in Re The Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Of The Commonwealth Of Australia; Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 at 624-625 are particularly apposite to the present circumstances.

8 The council was most likely to be successful in its challenge to the subpoena. In my view the applicant acted unreasonably by not explaining the purpose of the subpoena or narrowing its terms to make them more concise. The evidence shows that the council acted reasonably by attempting to resolve the dispute in a co-operative fashion.


9 Notwithstanding that the subpoena was withdrawn pursuant to an agreement it is nevertheless appropriate and reasonable that the applicant pay the council’s costs in relation to the Notice of Motion to set it aside. The costs of actually complying with the subpoena will ultimately be costs in the cause.

10 The formal orders are:

          1. The first applicant pay the costs of the respondent in relation the Notice of Motion to set aside the subpoena dated 31 May 2007.

2. All other costs reserved.

3. Exhibits may be returned.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document