Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited; Ryan v Eastlake Football Club Limited; Ryan v Bhagria; Ryan v O'Halloran; Ryan v Cain

The applicant, Radhika Reddy, principal of Legal on London, sought to set aside a subpoena issued by her former client, Mark Ryan. Mr Ryan had been the plaintiff in five proceedings heard together, in which Legal on London ultimately acted as his solicitors. Mr Ryan had appealed the decisions in these five matters, alleging the primary judge erred in rejecting his evidence and finding it not credible. The subpoena in question was issued to the principal of Capital Lawyers and sought a wide range of documents relating to Mr Ryan's claims, including file notes, billing records, and communications.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the subpoena issued by Mr Ryan was "excessive and oppressive," thereby warranting its setting aside. Mr Ryan articulated two purposes for seeking the documents: to obtain documents provided to his former solicitors that were not acted upon, and to obtain financial records relating to a dispute over invoice payments. The Court was required to consider the breadth of the subpoena in light of these stated purposes and the context of the ongoing appeals.

The Court reasoned that the subpoena was unreasonably broad and oppressive. It noted that the subpoena extended to virtually every document conceivably related to Mr Ryan's claims, including 36 boxes of documents, and that compliance would involve astronomical costs. The Court found that many of the documents sought could have no relevance to the issues on appeal. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that a significant portion of the documents sought, specifically financial records relating to invoice payments, were agreed by all parties not to be relevant to the appeal. The Court applied the principle that subpoenas must not be used in an oppressive manner and should be confined to documents relevant to the proceedings.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the subpoena issued on Radhika Reddy dated 13 May 2021 be set aside. The Court also granted Mr Ryan leave to amend his notices of appeal to include a ground that the primary judge failed to take into account documents provided to her. Applications to strike out the notices of appeal and for security for costs were adjourned for mention before the Senior Deputy Registrar, and costs of the application to set aside the subpoena were reserved.