Rizk v PVH Brands Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

In *Rizk v PVH Brands Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)*, the applicant sought to set aside four subpoenas issued at the request of the respondent, PVH Brands Australia Pty Ltd, directed to its employees. The application concerned the respondent's employees, Mr Robert Repaci, Mr Guy Griffiths, Mr Craig Barnett, and Mr Michael Gazal. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Manousaridis.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the subpoenas to give evidence had been issued with the object and expectation, on reasonable grounds, of obtaining relevant evidence from the named employees. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the setting aside of subpoenas, particularly in circumstances where their use might be considered an abuse of process or for an ulterior purpose.

Judge Manousaridis applied the principle established in cases such as *R v Baines*, which requires an inquiry into whether the court's process has been issued with the object and expectation on reasonable grounds of obtaining relevant evidence. The Court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of obtaining relevant evidence from Mr Griffiths, Mr Barnett, and Mr Gazal. However, the Court determined that this expectation was not based on reasonable grounds in relation to Mr Repaci.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the subpoena to give evidence issued against Mr Robert Repaci be set aside. The respondent's application to set aside the subpoenas issued against Mr Guy Griffiths, Mr Craig Barnett, and Mr Michael Gazal was dismissed.