King v Benecke

In the case of King v Benecke, the plaintiff sought to have a subpoena and a notice to produce set aside, arguing that the documents sought were not likely to assist materially on an identified issue and there was no reasonable basis beyond speculation that they would. The defendants opposed the applications, arguing that the documents were potentially relevant and that the subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose.

The court was required to determine whether the subpoenas and notice to produce had a legitimate forensic purpose, and whether the documents sought were potentially relevant. The court considered whether there was a reasonable basis beyond speculation that the documents would materially assist on an identified issue. The court also considered the timing of the applications and the potential impact on the plaintiff.

The court found that the subpoenas and notice to produce had a legitimate forensic purpose, and that there was a reasonable basis beyond speculation that the documents sought would materially assist on an identified issue. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the defendants were not entitled to scrutinise his answers to questions under cross-examination and then to go trawling for further material with which to scrutinise those answers again. The court found that the defendants had a legitimate interest in obtaining the documents, and that the plaintiff's submission that there was no reasonable basis beyond speculation for thinking that the documents were capable of producing new information which could substantially affect his credit was without merit.

The applications to set aside the subpoena and notice to produce were dismissed.