Lu v Minter (No 2)

The matter of Lu v Minter (No 2) involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who subsequently applied for summary dismissal based on perceived hopeless pleading errors by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, sought to issue subpoenae to the defendants and third parties to give evidence and produce documents. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could issue subpoenae without leave, as mandated by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) rule 7.3, which stipulates that litigants in person must obtain leave to issue subpoenae.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s pleadings were so fundamentally flawed that the claim was hopeless and whether the plaintiff's lack of legal representation necessitated stricter scrutiny. It was established that the plaintiff’s subpoenae were procedurally defective as they did not comply with the requirement of obtaining leave prior to issuing them. Given the self-represented status of the plaintiff and the procedural errors, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not met the threshold for obtaining leave to issue the subpoenae.

Accordingly, the court refused the plaintiff’s application for leave under UCPR rule 7.3 to issue the subpoenae. The court emphasised the importance of procedural compliance, particularly for litigants in person, and reiterated the necessity of obtaining leave to issue subpoenae as per the UCPR. The decision underscored the court's role in ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.