Giles Payne and Co v Penson

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Giles Payne & Co v Penson [2016] NSWDC 72
Hearing dates:18 March 2016
Date of orders: 18 March 2016
Decision date: 18 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Clause (3) to the schedule of the subpoena for production, sealed on 16 February 2016, issued at the request of the appellant and addressed to the first and second respondents in these proceedings set aside

 

Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion

 

Costs thrown away on 11 March 2016 are the respondents' costs in the notice of motion

 Stood over for directions on Friday 13 May 2016
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Motion to set aside, in part, subpoena issued by Appellant – Principal proceedings appeal against decision of costs review panel – Appellant wishes to view electronic documents which record each piece of work done by each practitioner or employee in the respondent firm – Relief sought in appeal is remitter for fresh determination, therefore appellant cannot agitate, on appeal, the quantum of charges made or whether the services were provided – Category of documents which the appellant seeks is irrelevant and extraneous to the appeal

  COSTS – Costs of motion to set aside, in part, subpoena issued by appellant – Appellant sought costs of preparation of meeting whole of subpoena – Limiting of issues would have be anticipated by any reasonable person upon reading affidavit supporting motion – Litigant in person must act reasonably, must act rationally, must act coherently and must read carefully the material presented – Costs ought to follow event
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004
Legal Professional Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Penson v Joseph John Gilles trading as Giles Payne & Co [2013] NSWSC 1796
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Joseph John Gilles trading as Giles Payne & Co (Applicant/Respondent)
Shirely Penson (Respondent/Appellant)
Representation: Mr L Fermanis (Applicant/Respondent)
In person (Respondent/Appellant)
File Number(s):2015/00274066
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Before me is notice of motion filed on 23 February 2006. The first prayer in the notice of motion is this:

"Pursuant to r 33.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the subpoena filed by the appellant on 16 February 2015 be set aside."

Prior to the luncheon adjournment, I granted leave to the respondent to amend that prayer so that it now reads thus:

"Pursuant to r 33.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) cl (3) of the schedule to the subpoena filed by the appellant on 16 February 2016 be set aside."

  1. To understand the nature of the dispute currently before me it is important to bear in mind the background to the current proceedings. These proceedings were commenced by a summons commencing an appeal filed on 18 September 2015. Under the heading "Details of Appeal" are cited the following matters:

"(1) this appeal is brought under the Legal Professional Act 2004,

(2) the appellant has filed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Giles Payne and Co v Penson 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] NSWDC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Giles Payne and Co, the appellant, brought this appeal against the decision of the costs review panel in relation to the principal proceedings. The appellant sought to view electronic documents which record each piece of work done by each practitioner or employee in the respondent firm. The relief sought in the appeal was a remitter for a fresh determination. The appellant argued that they could not agitate, on appeal, the quantum of charges made or whether the services were provided. The court found that the category of documents which the appellant sought was irrelevant and extraneous to the appeal.

The legal issues in this case centred around the appellant's motion to set aside, in part, a subpoena issued by them. The appellant sought costs of preparation of the meeting for the whole of the subpoena. The court found that the limiting of issues would have been anticipated by any reasonable person upon reading the affidavit supporting the motion. The court emphasised that a litigant in person must act reasonably, rationally, coherently and read carefully the material presented. The court found that costs ought to follow the event.

The court set aside Clause (3) to the schedule of the subpoena for production, sealed on 16 February 2016, issued at the request of the appellant and addressed to the first and second respondents in these proceedings. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the motion. The costs thrown away on 11 March 2016 are the respondents' costs in the notice of motion. The matter was stood over for directions on Friday 13 May 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

Clause (3) to the schedule of the subpoena for production, sealed on 16 February 2016, issued at the request of the appellant and addressed to the first and second respondents in these proceedings set aside

Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the motion

Costs thrown away on 11 March 2016 are the respondents' costs in the notice of motion

Stood over for directions on Friday 13 May 2016

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.