NSW Environmental Trust v Nguyen

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Environmental Trust v Nguyen [2020] NSWSC 1069
Hearing dates: 10 August 2020
Date of orders: 14 August 2020
Decision date: 14 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:

(1)   Motion dismissed;

(2)   The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the Motion.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Notices to Produce – Application to set aside – adjectival relevance – fishing – objection dismissed – production required

Legislation Cited:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85

Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 432; [1997] FCA 1504

Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (in Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1245

Mackintosh v The Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2010] NSWSC 1064

McLachlan v Whelan Browne [2019] NSWSC 514

Palmer v Dolman; Dolman v Palmer [2005] NSWCA 361

R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; [1999] NSWCCA 86

Re Bird and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2006) 91 ALD 691; [2006] AATA 109

Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 1065

The City of Sydney v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Limited & Anor [2011] NSWSC 364

Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Limited (No 2) (1989) 21 FCR 306; [1989] FCA 340

Texts Cited:

Peter Taylor SC et al, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW (2005, LexisNexis Australia)

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: NSW Environmental Trust (Plaintiff/Respondent)
David Duc Van Nguyen (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:

Counsel:
I King (Plaintiff/Respondent)
G Gee (Defendant/Applicant)

Solicitors:
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Deutsch Miller (Defendant/Applicant)
File Number(s): 2020/53871

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: The Court is required to deal with a Motion seeking to set aside various categories of documents sought pursuant to two Notices to Produce and 13 Subpoenas. The Motion is the subject of a Further Amended Notice of Motion filed in Court on 10 August 2020 and the defendant seeks to set aside the categories of documents sought by the plaintiff.

  2. The plaintiff, NSW Environmental Trust, operates a grant program to support innovative recycling projects. The defendant, David Duc Van Nguyen, also known as “David Newan”, was, for all relevant periods, the sole Director of Apeclinks Pty Ltd (hereinafter “Apeclinks”), which was a company which applied for a grant under the program operated by the plaintiff. The defendant completed a Grant Application Form, on behalf of Apeclinks, for the purpose of obtaining funding from the plaintiff for a program, being a project involving the recycling of vehicle tyres (hereinafter “the Project”).

  3. In its pleadings, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant made a number of express written false representations (hereinafter “the Grant Representations”) to the plaintiff in the application by Apeclinks for the grant. The application was executed on 16 July 2015 and the pleaded Grant Representations include that:

  1. Apeclinks intended to establish the Project;

  2. Apeclinks had identified a suitable location for the Project and was negotiating the terms of the lease;

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Environmental Trust v Nguyen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1069
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Environmental Trust of New South Wales filed an action against Nguyen in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The Trust sought to enforce a subpoena duces tecum, compelling Nguyen to produce records related to his fishing activities. Nguyen objected to the subpoena, arguing it lacked adjectival relevance as the Trust had not yet established a case against him. The Court was tasked with determining whether the subpoena was properly issued and if Nguyen was required to comply with it. The Court held that the Trust had demonstrated sufficient adjectival relevance for the subpoena, as the records were necessary to establish potential breaches of fishing regulations. The Court ruled that the subpoena was valid and dismissed Nguyen's objection. It ordered him to produce the requested records within the specified timeframe.

The Court's decision hinged on the principle that a subpoena could be enforced if it was reasonably necessary for the administration of justice, and the records sought were relevant to the proceedings. The Trust had provided evidence that Nguyen's fishing activities might have contravened certain regulations, justifying the subpoena's issuance. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the Trust could effectively investigate potential breaches and that the requirement for adjectival relevance was not overly burdensome. The Court concluded that the Trust had met the necessary threshold for the subpoena's validity. Consequently, Nguyen was required to produce the requested records, thereby enabling the Trust to proceed with its investigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.