GEMI 169 Pty Ltd v Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (No 3)

The applicants, GEMI 169 Pty Ltd, sought an order that the respondent, Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd, pay the costs of a motion seeking examination pursuant to section 68 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 concerning compliance with a subpoena. The applicants also sought an order that the respondents pay the costs of a further motion made by the applicants to set aside an order of the Supreme Court refusing to grant the examination order. The applicants contended that the respondents had failed to comply with the subpoena and that the costs should be paid by the respondents. The respondents argued that they had, in fact, complied with the subpoena and that the applicants had failed to prove otherwise. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the examinee should pay the costs of the motion seeking examination and, if so, to what extent. The court also needed to consider whether the respondents had complied with the subpoena and whether the applicants had established a failure to comply.

The court held that the examinee should pay the costs of the motion seeking examination. It found that the applicants had established that the respondents had failed to comply with the subpoena. The court noted that the respondents had argued that they had complied with the subpoena, but the applicants had provided evidence to the contrary. The court found that the applicants had made out a case for non-compliance with the subpoena and that the respondents had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut this claim. The court also held that the applicants were entitled to an order that the respondents pay the costs of the further motion made to set aside the order of the Supreme Court refusing to grant the examination order. The court found that the applicants had acted reasonably in making the motion and that the respondents had not provided a valid reason for the refusal of the examination order. The court held that the respondents should pay the costs of the further motion.

The court made an order that the respondents pay the costs of the motion seeking examination and the further motion made to set aside the order of the Supreme Court refusing to grant the examination order. The court found that the applicants had established a failure to comply with the subpoena and that the respondents had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut this claim. The court also held that the applicants were entitled to an order that the respondents pay the costs of the further motion made to set aside the order of the Supreme Court refusing to grant the examination order.