Levey v Bishop Paul Bernard Bird

Levey v Bishop Paul Bernard Bird involved a dispute regarding objections to a subpoena issued to the respondent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The subpoena required the respondent to provide documents and attend for an interview concerning allegations of sexual abuse. The respondent objected to the subpoena, leading to a legal dispute over the costs associated with the objection and compliance.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs of the subpoena objection, including legal advice and the objection itself, should be borne by the party who issued the subpoena or the party who objected. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by section 32C of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic), which allows for the costs of objection to be awarded against the party who issued the subpoena. Additionally, the court considered the privacy rights of sexual abuse victims and complainants, drawing on relevant case law.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the principles set out in Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin (No 4) [2017] VSC 270, which held that the costs of a subpoena objection should be awarded against the party who issued the subpoena. The court distinguished the current case from Stephensen v The Salesian Society Inc; Easton v The Salesian Society Inc [2018] VSC 602, where the court had awarded costs based on the unique circumstances of privacy and the potential impact on the victims. The court found that the costs of the subpoena objection, including legal advice, should be awarded against the party who issued the subpoena, considering the need to protect the privacy of the complainants and the procedural fairness in the resolution of the proceeding.

The court ordered that the costs of the subpoena objection, including the costs of legal advice, were to be awarded against the party who issued the subpoena. This decision recognised the importance of protecting the privacy of sexual abuse victims and ensuring that the procedural costs did not disproportionately burden the objecting party.