HEUGH -v- CENTRAL PETROLEUM LTD [No 2] [2013] WASC 323

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 323
Case No:	CIV:1493/2012	Heard:	12 AUGUST 2013
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	28/08/13
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Subpoenas set aside in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHN PHILLIP HEUGH CENTRAL PETROLEUM LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Subpoenas Legitimate forensic purpose Oppression Turns on own facts Practice and procedure Memorandum of conferral O 59 r 9(1) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36B r 4, O 59 r 9(1)
Case References:	National Employers Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill (1978) 1 NSWLR 372 Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HEUGH -v- CENTRAL PETROLEUM LTD [No 2] [2013] WASC 323 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 12 AUGUST 2013 DELIVERED : 28 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1493 of 2012 BETWEEN : JOHN PHILLIP HEUGH

Plaintiff

AND

CENTRAL PETROLEUM LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Subpoenas - Legitimate forensic purpose - Oppression - Turns on own facts

Practice and procedure - Memorandum of conferral - O 59 r 9(1) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36B r 4, O 59 r 9(1)

Result:

Subpoenas set aside in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

Defendant : Mr R L Hooker

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

Defendant : Jarman McKenna

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

National Employers Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind & Hill (1978) 1 NSWLR 372
Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50

1 LE MIERE J: The defendant, Central Petroleum Limited (Central Petroleum), is a public company listed on the ASX. It is engaged in the business of petroleum, helium and coal exploration. The plaintiff, Mr Heugh, was until 22 March 2012 employed as its managing director under a written contract of employment. Mr Askin was the chairman of the company. Mr Faull was a director and Mr White is the company secretary. Mr Cottee is the CEO.

2 At a meeting on 2 February 2012 the board of directors of Central Petroleum resolved to assign the authority and responsibility for farmout dealings to the exploration manager, Mr Shortt. On 4 February 2012 Mr Heugh sent two letters to Mr Shortt. The first letter informed Mr Shortt of the board resolution on 2 February 2012 and asked Mr Shortt to inform Mr Heugh whether he would like to take on those responsibilities in addition to his existing workload. The second letter, subsequently described as a letter of warning, stated that Mr Shortt's performance was inadequate and invited Mr Shortt to discuss the matter with Mr Heugh. Mr Heugh subsequently sent an email to Mr Shortt in which he offered to expunge the warning letter from the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heugh v Central Petroleum Ltd [No 2] 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: [2013] WASC 323
Decision Date: 28 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Heugh and Central Petroleum Ltd. Heugh had previously sought to obtain documents from Central Petroleum Ltd through the issue of subpoenas. Central Petroleum Ltd applied for the subpoenas to be set aside, arguing that they were oppressive, that they were not for a legitimate forensic purpose, and that they were beyond the scope of the memorandum of conferral. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issues were whether the subpoenas were oppressive, whether they were for a legitimate forensic purpose, and whether they were within the scope of the memorandum of conferral.

The Court considered the nature of the subpoenas, the context in which they were issued, and the purpose for which they were sought. It held that while some of the subpoenas were oppressive and beyond the scope of the memorandum of conferral, others were not. The Court also found that the subpoenas were not oppressive overall, as they were not so unreasonable as to be unfair or unjust. However, the Court did find that some of the subpoenas were not for a legitimate forensic purpose, as they were not relevant to the issues in the proceeding. The Court set aside the subpoenas in part, and ordered that some of them be quashed. The orders of the Court were that certain subpoenas issued by Heugh to Central Petroleum Ltd were set aside in part.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subpoenas set aside in part

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.