National Australia Bank v Sayed (No. 13)

The case of National Australia Bank v Sayed (No. 13) involved a litigant appearing in person seeking to issue a further subpoena to an agent of the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff had already produced numerous documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum. The applicant sought to subpoena additional documents from the bank's agent to produce evidence that was outside the pleadings and issues in the proceeding. The bank opposed the application on the basis that the proposed evidence was irrelevant and the subpoena was an oppressive fishing expedition.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to issue a further subpoena to the bank's agent to produce documents outside the pleadings and issues, and whether such a subpoena amounted to an oppressive fishing expedition. The court needed to consider the width of the production and whether the subpoena was within the scope of the proceeding. The applicant argued that the additional documents were relevant to the proceeding and that the bank had failed to produce them voluntarily.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to issue the further subpoena. The proposed evidence was outside the pleadings and issues in the proceeding. The subpoena amounted to a fishing expedition, and the width of the production was oppressive. The court refused to grant leave for the applicant to issue the subpoena. The court emphasised that the purpose of a subpoena was to obtain evidence relevant to the issues in the proceeding, and not to allow a party to conduct a free-ranging inquiry into the affairs of the other party. The court considered that the bank had already produced a substantial amount of relevant documents, and that the applicant's request for additional documents was an oppressive fishing expedition. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated how the additional documents would assist in resolving the issues in the proceeding.

In conclusion, the court refused the applicant's application to issue a further subpoena to the bank's agent to produce documents outside the pleadings and issues in the proceeding. The court held that the proposed evidence was irrelevant and that the subpoena amounted to an oppressive fishing expedition. The court emphasised the importance of limiting the scope of discovery to relevant evidence and preventing parties from conducting free-ranging inquiries into the affairs of other parties. The court's decision provides guidance to litigants in person on the scope of discovery and the need to keep the issues in the proceeding focused.