Mancorp Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd Trading as Baulderstone Hornibrook No. SCRG 89/960 Judgment No. 3847 Number of Pages 6 Practice and Procedure Subpoena

In this case, the applicants, Betros and Mr Betros, Tectvs, and CMP and Mr Mortimer, applied for compensation for the costs incurred in complying with subpoenas duces tecum served in a breach of contract action between Mancorp Pty Ltd and Baulderstone Pty Ltd. The applicants, who were consultants for Mancorp in the construction of the Price Waterhouse Centre, sought compensation under Supreme Court Rules 1987 Rule 81.09 for expenses incurred in identifying and producing documents in response to the subpoenas. The applicants' claims included costs for legal advice to identify privileged documents, photocopying, and time spent attending court.

The court addressed several issues, including whether the cost of identifying privileged documents, legal costs on a solicitor and client basis, the basis for recovering executive and clerical costs, and the appropriateness of recovering for photocopying time. The court concluded that the applicants should not be compensated for the cost of identifying privileged documents, as it was not reasonable for them to incur such costs when they were already assisting Mancorp in preparing its case. Regarding legal costs, the court held that they should be awarded on a solicitor and client basis. The court also determined that the compensation should cover actual outgoings incurred, not loss of profit, and that the reasonableness of photocopying costs should be assessed by the taxing officer.

Ultimately, the court remitted the applicants' claims to the taxing officer for taxation in accordance with the reasons provided.