Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2023] FCA 1489
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Pigozzo, the applicant, and Mineral Resources Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred around the applicant's requests for leave to issue subpoenas to give evidence and produce documents. The Federal Court was the forum for this case.

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.