Sahore v Ahmad

In the case of Sahore v Ahmad, the plaintiff, Honey Sahore, sought to set aside two subpoenas issued by the defendant, Waqar Ahmad. The subpoenas were issued to ACT Policing and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (the Authority), respectively, and were challenged on the ground that they lacked a legitimate forensic purpose. The plaintiff is involved in litigation with the defendant, arising out of an alleged business partnership in the wrecking of European manufactured cars and the sale of their parts. The plaintiff has brought a claim for approximately $100,000 plus costs and interest, alleging breaches of a partnership agreement, unlawful sale of a car owned by him, and reasonable remuneration for work he claims to have performed.

The first subpoena, issued to ACT Policing, sought production of documents related to any complaints made by the plaintiff about or related to the defendant from January 2015 to the present. The plaintiff argued that the subpoena had no legitimate forensic purpose as it had no bearing on any issue to be litigated between the parties. The Court found that there was no articulated issue on which documents produced by ACT Policing might possibly throw light and set aside the subpoena.

The second subpoena, issued to the Authority, sought production of documents concerning a complaint made by the plaintiff to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The plaintiff argued that the subpoena lacked a legitimate forensic purpose as there was no clear link between the documents sought and the issues in the case. The Court found that there was no material assistance to be gained from the subpoena and set it aside.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff's complaints to ACT Policing and the Authority were matters extraneous to the issues in dispute in these proceedings. The Court emphasised the low threshold for apparent relevance but noted that a party cannot seek documents in an attempt to discover if the issuing party has a case. The Court set aside the subpoenas as they lacked a legitimate forensic purpose.

The Court will hear the parties as to costs of the application once the issue concerning the subpoena to McInnes Wilson Lawyers is resolved.