Lawrence v Sammut (No. 2) - [2022] NSWSC 390

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Sammut (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 390
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 05 April 2022
Decision date: 05 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The application by the plaintiff for leave to issue subpoenas to Karen McLean and Associates, MWL Financial Group, and Harrison and Gill Chartered Accountants is refused.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – unrepresented litigant – leave to issue subpoenas – documents sought irrelevant to remaining issues in proceedings – no point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW
Legal Professional Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Lawrence v Sammut [2022] NSWSC 344
Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Wayne James Lawrence (Plaintiff)
Alice Alexandria Sammut (First Defendant)
Paul William Ciantar (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
JC McDonald (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
McLean & Associates (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/57931
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

These proceedings concern an appeal under s 89 of the Legal Professional Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) from a determination of a Costs Review PaneI in February 2021.
The background and relevant history to the proceedings is set out in [1] to [14] of Lawrence v Sammut [2022] NSWSC 344. That judgment concerned the setting aside of notices to produce issued by the plaintiff, and should be read together with this judgment.
The problems with the notices to produce the subject of that judgment are similar to the problems that apply to the subpoenas now sought to be issued, namely, that the material sought is irrelevant to the issues that remain live before the Court in these proceedings. Those issues are confined to argument regarding the action the Court should take in response to a referee’s report on costs.
By notice of motion filed 18 March 2022, the plaintiff seeks leave to issue subpoenas to the defendant’s solicitor Karen McLean and Associates, the MWL Financial Group, and Harrison and Gill Chartered Accountants.
Because he does not have a solicitor acting for him, the plaintiff requires the Court’s leave to issue the subpoenas: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), (UCPR) r 7.3.
For the reasons that follow, leave is refused.

The Application Material

The plaintiff’s application is supported by an affidavit affirmed by him on 16 March 2022 appending the proposed subpoenas and a one-page annexure to the Court’s application form for leave to issue subpoenas. This single page appears to comprise his submissions in support of the leave sought, together with two and a half pages of submissions forwarded by email to Chambers on 1 April 2022.
The Schedule to each subpoena is reproduced exactly as it appears in the subpoena, including numbering, typographical, drafting and punctuation errors, to illustrate the problematic nature of the subpoenas sought to be issued.
The subpoena to…

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.

Continue reading Lawrence v Sammut (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Sammut (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 390
Case: [2022] NSWSC 390
Decision Date: 05 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawrence v Sammut (No. 2), the plaintiff sought leave from the court to issue subpoenas for certain documents. The plaintiff was unrepresented and was engaged in a legal dispute with the defendant over a loan agreement. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to issue the subpoenas. The legal issues before the court were whether the documents sought by the plaintiff were relevant to the remaining issues in the proceedings and whether the application raised any point of principle.

The court held that the documents sought were irrelevant to the remaining issues in the proceedings and that there was no point of principle that would warrant granting leave to issue the subpoenas. The court found that the plaintiff's application was an abuse of process and that the documents were not necessary to the resolution of the case. The court further held that the plaintiff's unrepresented status did not entitle them to any special consideration. The court denied the plaintiff's application for leave to issue the subpoenas.

The court's decision was based on the principle that the courts should not be used as a means of fishing expeditions or to harass other parties in the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff's application was an abuse of process and that there was no point of principle that would warrant granting leave to issue the subpoenas. The court's decision was not based on the plaintiff's unrepresented status, but rather on the merits of the application itself. The court's decision was final and there was no appeal available to the plaintiff.

Orders