SINGH -v- FRIEDMAN [No 2] [2016] WASC 39

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 39
Case No:	CIV:2183/2011	Heard:	12 JANUARY 2016
Coram:	ALLANSON J	Delivered:	12/01/16
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SUKHWANT SINGH NEVILLE FRIEDMAN JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Subpoena Application to set aside Whether or not a legitimate forensic purpose Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4B(1)
Case References:	Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 276 ICAP Australia v Forrest Moebes [2010] NSWSC 738 Stanley v Layne Christensen Company [2004] WASCA 50 Wookey v Quigley [No 5] [2011] WASC 275

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SINGH -v- FRIEDMAN [No 2] [2016] WASC 39 CORAM : ALLANSON J HEARD : 12 JANUARY 2016 DELIVERED : 12 JANUARY 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 2183 of 2011

Consolidated by Orders dated 24 May 2012

BETWEEN : SUKHWANT SINGH

Plaintiff

AND

NEVILLE FRIEDMAN

First Defendant

JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 1476 of 2012 BETWEEN : SUKHWANT SINGH

Plaintiff

AND

NEVILLE FRIEDMAN

First Defendant

JEFFREY SOMAH LURIE

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Subpoena - Application to set aside - Whether or not a legitimate forensic purpose - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4B(1)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2183 of 2011

Consolidated by Orders dated 24 May 2012

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

First Defendant : Mr S Penglis

Second Defendant : Mr S Penglis

Subpoena Recipients : Mr P Van Der Zanden

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

First Defendant : Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers

Second Defendant : Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers

Subpoena Recipients : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

CIV 1476 of 2012

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

First Defendant : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

Second Defendant : Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 276
ICAP Australia v Forrest Moebes [2010] NSWSC 738
Stanley v Layne Christensen Company [2004] WASCA 50
Wookey v Quigley [No 5] [2011] WASC 275

ALLANSON J

(This judgment was delivered orally on 12 January 2016 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 The plaintiff and the defendants previously carried on a law practice in partnership. The partnership dissolved in 2010, with the plaintiff leaving the partnership and the two defendants continuing to carry on practice in partnership with each other.

2 By writ filed 5 July 2011, the plaintiff seeks various relief against the defendants. Relevantly, for the purpose of this application, he pleads that he has suffered loss and damage by reason of the defendants' breach of contract and breach of the Partnership Act 1895 (WA).

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Singh v Friedman [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Singh v Friedman [No 2] [2016] WASC 39
Case: [2016] WASC 39
Decision Date: 12 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Friedman [No 2] involved a legal dispute where Singh sought to set aside a subpoena issued to Friedman, arguing that it was not for a legitimate forensic purpose. The matter was heard in a relevant court, where the primary focus was on the validity and necessity of the subpoena in question.

The court was tasked with determining whether the subpoena served a legitimate forensic purpose, a decision that hinged on the specific facts of the case. This required an examination of the relevance and necessity of the subpoena in the context of the proceedings, particularly in relation to the evidence sought and its potential contribution to the case's outcome.

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the subpoena did serve a legitimate forensic purpose. The reasoning was grounded in the particular circumstances of the case, including the relevance of the sought information and its potential impact on the proceedings. Consequently, the application to set aside the subpoena was dismissed, affirming its validity and necessity within the legal framework of the case.

No further orders were made by the court, and the application was dismissed as per the final orders noted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.