Flynn v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ACN 005 357 522 (Discrimination)

The applicant in this case, Flynn, sought to set aside a subpoena issued by the respondent, ANZ, on the grounds of relevance, oppression and the assertion that it constituted a fishing exercise. The case was heard in the Australian Human Rights Commission, a federal anti-discrimination tribunal. Flynn argued that the subpoena, which sought a wide range of documents, was not relevant to the proceedings and was oppressive, amounting to an abuse of process. The crux of the dispute was whether the subpoena, which requested numerous categories of documents, exceeded the scope of what was necessary for the case and whether it was being used as a means to obtain documents that could be used to attack Flynn's credibility.

The tribunal had to determine whether the subpoena was relevant to the proceedings and whether it was oppressive, amounting to an abuse of process. The tribunal also needed to assess whether the subpoena was an impermissible fishing exercise, seeking documents that were not relevant or necessary for the case. Furthermore, the tribunal had to decide whether the respondent had acted in a manner that was oppressive or constituted an abuse of process by issuing the subpoena.

The tribunal found that the subpoena was oppressive and amounted to an abuse of process because it was overly broad and sought documents that were not relevant to the proceedings. The tribunal concluded that the subpoena was an impermissible fishing exercise, seeking documents that went beyond what was necessary for the case. The tribunal also found that the respondent had acted in a manner that was oppressive and constituted an abuse of process by issuing the subpoena. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the subpoena in whole or in part, ordering the respondent to disclose only specific documents relevant to the proceedings.

The tribunal ordered that the respondent disclose any relevant ANZ Policy document from the period November 2017 to September 2019 addressing any policy concerned with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) legislative obligations and requirements as they relate to currency traders. The tribunal also set aside the subpoena insofar as it required the production of specific categories of documents, finding them to be irrelevant or oppressive. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that subpoenas are narrowly tailored to the specific needs of the case and do not constitute an oppressive fishing exercise.