Lee v Chang - [2025] WASCA 54

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   LEE -v- CHANG [2025] WASCA 54
CORAM:   VAUGHAN JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   11 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED          :   11 APRIL 2025
PUBLISHED           :   14 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACV 13 of 2025
BETWEEN:   JEFFREY STEWART LEE
Appellant
AND
AMONG CHANG
First Respondent
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MASTER RUSSELL
File Number            :   CIV 1839 of 2024

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal of interlocutory orders - Leave to appeal - Subpoena to produce - Where appellant sought to issue subpoena to another court - Court's power to issue subpoena - Court's power to issue subpoena to another court - Documents and things in custody of court - Leave to appeal refused

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 16
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 26A r 4, O 36B r 2, O 36B r 2(2B)(a), O 36B r 13

Result:

Leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Application of the Attorney-General under s 33 of the Evidence on Commission Act 1995 [2021] NSWSC 151
Australia National Airlines Commission v The Commonwealth of Australia [1975] HCA 33; (1975) 132 CLR 582
Bentall v Sydney (1839) 10 AD & E 161; 113 ER 62
Carter v Mallesons Stephen Jaques (1993) 11 WAR 159
Clough Ltd v Forge Group Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2022] WASCA 179
Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2002] NSWSC 973
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Ltd [2024] WASCA 168
NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 107
Scanlan v 2 - 4 McCabe Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 135

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Overview

On 11 April 2025 the court sat to hear the appellant's application for leave to appeal from an order made by Master Russell dismissing the appellant's application for leave to issue a subpoena for the production of documents in the custody of the Magistrates Court at Fremantle.
After hearing from the appellant the court refused leave to appeal. The court said that it would provide written reasons for its refusal of leave to appeal as soon as practicable. These are our reasons for refusing leave to appeal.

Background

The appellant brought proceedings in the General Division of the Supreme Court of Western Australia by originating summons dated 16 July 2024 seeking orders for pre-action discovery against the respondents pursuant to O 26A r 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The respondents claimed that the appellant lacked standing to bring the proceedings because the appellant was a bankrupt; and 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.

Continue reading Lee v Chang

Details

AGLC: Lee v Chang [2025] WASCA 54
Case: [2025] WASCA 54
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Chang involved the appellant, Lee, seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order made by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in dispute was whether the court had the authority to issue a subpoena to a different court for the production of documents. The respondent, Chang, argued that the Supreme Court lacked the power to compel the production of documents held by another court. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court had the inherent jurisdiction to issue a subpoena to another court for the production of documents. The Court of Appeal needed to consider the principles of inherent jurisdiction and whether they extended to the power to issue a subpoena to another court. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Supreme Court could compel the production of documents held by another court, particularly where those documents were in the custody of that court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court did not have the inherent jurisdiction to issue a subpoena to another court for the production of documents. The court reasoned that the power to issue a subpoena was confined to the production of documents within its own custody and did not extend to documents held by another court. The Court of Appeal further noted that the principles of comity and respect for the jurisdiction of other courts precluded the Supreme Court from compelling the production of documents from another court. Consequently, the court refused Lee's application for leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

Orders