FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1489
File number: WAD 103 of 2022 Judgment of: FEUTRILL J Date of judgment: 28 November 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to issue subpoenas to give evidence and produce documents returnable at an interlocutory hearing and (or) before trial – where orders made for exchange of affidavit evidence – where witness unwilling to make affidavit – whether oral evidence necessary to facilitate the just resolution of an interlocutory hearing – where pleadings not closed and statement of claim unsettled – whether issue of subpoenas to produce documents before trial premature – whether subpoenas have a legitimate forensic purpose – whether subpoenas are for non-party discovery – whether subpoenas are oppressive Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 97
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A(2)(b), 37M
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.23, 24.01, 24.11, 24.12, 24.13
Cases cited: Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited [1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352; (2006) 236 ALR 720
Bristol-Myers Squibb Australia Pty Ltd v Astra Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 256; (1999) 45 IPR 144
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan s/o Velayutham [1980] AC 331
McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233; (2005) 221 ALR 785
Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 1166
Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corporation Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 26 Date of hearing: 27 November 2023 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Hyde Page Solicitor for the Applicant: Harmers Workplace Lawyers Counsel for the First, Second, Third and Fifth Respondents: Mr S Penglis SC Solicitor for the First Second, Third and Fifth Respondents: Bennett Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr B Kremer SC with Mr R French Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons Counsel for Interested person: Mr P Sadler Solicitor for Interested person HWF Australia ORDERS
WAD 103 of 2022 BETWEEN: STEVEN PIGOZZO
Applicant
AND: MINERAL RESOURCES LTD (ACN 118 549 910)
First Respondent
CHRIS ELLISON
Second Respondent
LAWFIRST PTY LTD (ACN 147 622 197) (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
FEUTRILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 NOVEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Stephen Leslie Wyatt dated 17 November 2023 be dismissed.
2.The applicant’s request for leave to issue a subpoena to Hampton Transport Pty Ltd dated 17 November 2023, as amended orally on 27 November 2023, and the request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Christopher James Batten dated 17 November 2023, be stood over until after the hearing and determination of the various interlocutory applications listed for hearing on 6 February 2024.
3.The costs of hearing the applicant’s requests to issue subpoenas on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1489
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant's requests for leave to issue subpoenas were justified. This included whether oral evidence was necessary for a just resolution of the interlocutory hearing, whether it was premature to issue subpoenas before the trial when the pleadings were not yet closed and the statement of claim was unsettled, and whether the subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose and were for non-party discovery or oppressive.
The court found that the applicant's request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Stephen Leslie Wyatt should be dismissed. The court also decided that the requests for leave to issue subpoenas to Hampton Transport Pty Ltd and Mr Christopher James Batten should be stood over until after the hearing and determination of the various interlocutory applications. The court reserved the costs of hearing the applicant's requests to issue subpoenas.
The orders of the court were that the applicant's request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Stephen Leslie Wyatt was dismissed, and the requests for leave to issue subpoenas to Hampton Transport Pty Ltd and Mr Christopher James Batten were stood over until after the hearing and determination of the various interlocutory applications. The costs of hearing the applicant's requests to issue subpoenas were reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Stephen Leslie Wyatt dated 17 November 2023 be dismissed.
2. The applicant’s request for leave to issue a subpoena to Hampton Transport Pty Ltd dated 17 November 2023, as amended orally on 27 November 2023, and the request for leave to issue a subpoena to Mr Christopher James Batten dated 17 November 2023, be stood over until after the hearing and determination of the various interlocutory applications listed for hearing on 6 February 2024.
3. The costs of hearing the applicant’s requests to issue subpoenas on 27 November 2023 be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.