James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

The applicant, James, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge who had refused an application for disclosure of documents and leave to issue subpoenas. The dispute concerned whether the requested documents were necessary for the resolution of the real issues in dispute between the parties. The primary judge had found that the need for disclosure was obviated by a concession made by the respondent, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The appeal was heard by McCallum JA and Sackville AJA.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the primary judge had erred in refusing the application for disclosure and subpoenas, and whether any such error resulted in injustice to the applicant. This required the court to consider the adequacy of the concession made by the respondent and whether it sufficiently addressed the applicant's need for the documents to resolve the real issues in dispute.

The appellate court found no error or injustice in the primary judge's decision. Their Honours reasoned that the concession made by the respondent effectively rendered the requested disclosure and subpoenas unnecessary for the proper determination of the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal. By consent, the respondent was ordered to provide a response in the nature of a pleading to the “particulars of representation by silence by ANZ” document dated 7 December 2018 within 14 days. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.