Marshall v Smith

[2013] WASC 432

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MARSHALL -v- SMITH [2013] WASC 432

CORAM:   LE MIERE J

HEARD:   31 OCTOBER 2013

DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2013

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2982 of 2012

BETWEEN:   JOHN LLOYD CRAIG MARSHALL

First Plaintiff

BEVAN JON WARRIS
Second Plaintiff

NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
Third Plaintiff

AND

EDWARD SCOTT SMITH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Subpoena to produce - Subpoena issued before defence pleaded - Whether legitimate forensic purpose - Issue of subpoena is premature

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4(b)(1), O 4A r 2, O 26A, O 36B r 4(1)

Result:

Application to set aside subpoena adjourned until after defence filed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr M L Bennett

Second Plaintiff            :     Mr M L Bennett

Third Plaintiff               :     Mr M L Bennett

Defendant:     Mr J D MacLaurin

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Bennett + Co

Second Plaintiff            :     Bennett + Co

Third Plaintiff               :     Bennett + Co

Defendant:     Tottle Partners

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

Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136; [2001] FCA 60

Buswell v Carles [2012] WASC 509

Kingsfield Holdings Pty Ltd v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 347

Taranissi v British Broadcasting Corporation [2008] EWHC 2486 (QB)

Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Company v Gilbert and Rivington (1895) QB 148

1. LE MIERE J:  (This is an edited version of the reasons for judgment delivered on 31 October 2013).

2. The defendant caused a subpoena to be issued to Empire Oil & Gas NL, a company of which the plaintiffs are directors.  The subpoena requires the proper officer of the company to produce the following documents: 

   All documents in your possession, custody or power from 1 July 2012 to today arising out of, relating to, referring to or recording:

   (a)the indemnity or indemnities provided to any Director of Empire in relation to any defamation proceedings commenced by a Director or Directors of Empire against the defendant, Edward Scott Smith;

   (b)the indemnity or indemnities provided to any Director of Empire in relation to any defamation proceeding by a Director or Directors of Empire against any shareholder of Empire other than the defendant Edward Scott Smith,

   including, without limitation to the above:

   (1)any minutes of meetings; and

   (2)any resolutions;

   of the board of directors of Empire authorising the grant of, or otherwise relating to, referring to or recording the indemnities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

3. The plaintiffs have applied to set aside the subpoena on two related grounds.  The first is that the documents sought pursuant to the subpoena do not have any apparent potential relevance in the extended sense, the Peruvian Guano sense, to the matters in issue in the litigation.  The second is that the defendant has not filed a defence, and it is inappropriate for the defendant:

   … to have 'put nothing up' and instead 'seek to fish around for some basis to support a plea of justification'.

Defendant's intended defences

1. The…