Standen v Feehan (No 2) - [2007] FCA 1865

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2007] FCA 1865
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoena – application to set aside – whether subpoenas were relevant to issues or fishing – whether subpoenas oppressive – whether s 824 of the Workplace Relations Act applies to applicants who applied to set aside subpoenas – application allowed with costs.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 824
MICHAEL STANDEN v JUSTIN FEEHAN
SAD 74 OF 2006
LANDER J
26 NOVEMBER 2007
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 74 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant

AND:

JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 NOVEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The subpoena directed to Mr Robert Stewart of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside.
2.The subpoena directed to Mr Chris Schutz, General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside.
3.The respondent to the proceeding pay the costs of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes, of and incidental to the motion to set aside the subpoenas.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 74 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant

AND:

JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

26 NOVEMBER 2007

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by an officer of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and the General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Salisbury Homes (the applicants on the motion), to set aside the subpoena issued to each of those entities by the respondent to these proceedings.
The substantive proceeding was commenced by the applicant against the respondent on 4 May 2006. In the statement of claim, the applicant claims that the respondent, whilst on a site at Halifax Street in Adelaide, intentionally hindered and obstructed a number of persons in the carrying out of their businesses.
The particulars giving rise to the conduct which is said to give rise to intentionally hindering and obstructing those people, assert that the respondent arrived at the site on 5 May 2004, parked his vehicle on the site and then refused to move his vehicle so as not to allow work to be undertaken by builders and subcontractors on the site. There is no allegation that the respondent was not entitled to be on the site. Indeed, it seems to be accepted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the statement of claim that the respondent was entitled to be on the site, pursuant to ss 285B and 285C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act).
Both subpoenas to each of the two entities are in exactly the same form. The respondent…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Standen v Feehan (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] FCA 1865
Decision Date: 26 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Standen v Feehan (No 2) was a legal proceeding before the South Australian Supreme Court. The primary parties involved were Mr Standen, the applicant, and Mr Feehan, the respondent. The dispute centred around the validity and scope of subpoenas issued by the respondent to two individuals, Mr Robert Stewart of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and Mr Chris Schutz, General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes. The subpoenas were issued on 12 November 2007, compelling the production of specific documents and information related to the litigation. The applicant sought to have these subpoenas set aside on the grounds that they were improperly broad and sought information unrelated to the issues at hand.

The legal issues before the court were whether the subpoenas issued by the respondent were valid and whether they exceeded the permissible scope of discovery in the litigation. The court had to determine if the subpoenas were narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute and if they were relevant to the case at hand. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the respondent had acted in accordance with the rules of procedure governing subpoenas in civil litigation. The applicant argued that the subpoenas were not limited to the issues in dispute and sought extraneous information, which was not relevant to the matters before the court.

The court found that the subpoenas were indeed overly broad and not confined to the issues in dispute. It was established that the subpoenas required the production of documents and information that were not relevant to the matters being litigated. Consequently, the court held that the subpoenas exceeded the scope of permissible discovery and were invalid. The respondent was found to have acted outside the bounds of the procedural rules, thereby justifying the setting aside of the subpoenas. The court ordered that the subpoenas issued to Mr Stewart and Mr Schutz be set aside and that the respondent pay the costs incurred by the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes in relation to the motion to set aside the subpoenas.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The subpoena directed to Mr Robert Stewart of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside.

2. The subpoena directed to Mr Chris Schutz, General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside.

3. The respondent to the proceeding pay the costs of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes, of and incidental to the motion to set aside the subpoenas.

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 74 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	MICHAEL STANDEN Applicant
AND:	JUSTIN FEEHAN Respondent

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 74 OF 2006

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE:	26 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:	ADELAIDE