Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v Bhagria; Ryan v O'Halloran; Ryan v Cain (No 3)

Mark Ryan appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, delivered on 23 December 2020, in which he was unsuccessful in four separate proceedings arising from five alleged injuries. The appeals were listed for hearing over two days. Before the Court of Appeal, Mr Ryan applied for leave to issue subpoenas to two individuals, Mr Jesse Iliopoulos and Ms Jade O’Halloran, to give evidence.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal concerned the application for leave to issue subpoenas, particularly in light of an outstanding application by Mr Ryan to adduce further evidence. The Court was required to consider whether granting leave to issue the subpoenas, which would involve witnesses giving evidence after the allocated hearing time, would impede the timely completion of the appeals. Additionally, the Court considered potential non-compliance with specific Court Procedures Rules.

The Court determined that the application for leave to issue subpoenas should be dismissed. It noted that an application to adduce further evidence, which was intended to be made at the commencement of the appeal hearing, was not yet before the Court. The Court found that it was unlikely that an application to tender a recording of a conversation between Mr Ryan and Ms O’Halloran would succeed, given existing evidence and potential difficulties. Furthermore, the Court considered that the proposed evidence from Mr Iliopoulos regarding the reasons for the recording not being tendered below, and potentially concerning Mr Ryan's credibility, was unlikely to be determinative of the issues on appeal, which were limited to the extent of injury, loss, or damage suffered by Mr Ryan, as liability had been admitted. The Court also noted that the proposed subpoenas were not in compliance with the Court Procedures Rules.

The application for leave to issue subpoenas was dismissed.