Ryder & Lee

In this matter before Burr J, the dispute concerned a Notice of Objection to subpoenas issued by the mother, seeking the production of documents from Ms A and the Managing Director of S Company Pty Ltd. The mother sought these documents in proceedings involving the father.

The court was required to determine whether the documents sought by the subpoenas were of sufficient apparent relevance to the proceedings, whether they were sought for a legitimate forensic purpose, and whether the subpoenas were oppressive. The objection was based on submissions that most of the documents sought were irrelevant to the principal trial issue, which concerned an examination of the father's income during relevant periods and potential departure orders from previous assessments.

Burr J reasoned that while subpoenas should not be used as a substitute for discovery from a party, their use against a non-party was appropriate given the history of the matter. The court noted that the non-party, Ms A, was closely connected to the father as his present wife, former business partner, and current employer. Applying principles from *Lane v The Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales*, the court held that a subpoena must specify with reasonable particularity the documents required and that a subpoena should not be so wide as to be burdensome. Despite submissions that many documents were irrelevant, the court found that the documents sought were of sufficient apparent relevance and sought for a legitimate forensic purpose, and that the subpoenas were not oppressive.

The court ordered that the Notice of Objection to the subpoenas be dismissed and that the documents sought be produced by a specified date. Liberty was granted to the parties to apply on three days' notice regarding costs and conduct money.