Tan v King (No 2)

The parties involved in the case of Tan v King (No 2) were Tan, the plaintiff, and King, the defendant. The dispute arose from a subpoena to produce certain court documents from Victorian proceedings, which were sought by Tan. This legal matter was brought before the court for resolution. The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the consent orders made on the settlement of the Victorian proceedings were governed by rule 28.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) or the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the order was a suppression order and, if not, whether it limited access to non-parties to files in the registry, without absolving a party in possession of documents, which happened to be on the court file, from compliance with a subpoena.

In reaching its decision, the court analysed the nature of the order and its implications. It was determined that the order was not a suppression order. Instead, it was found to be an order under rule 28.05, which restricts access to non-parties to files in the registry. The court held that this limitation did not exempt a party in possession of documents, which happened to be on the court file, from complying with a subpoena. The court reasoned that the order did not absolve the defendant from the obligation to produce the requested documents, as the order's purpose was to limit access to non-parties, rather than to exempt a party in possession of the documents from complying with a subpoena.

Based on the court's reasoning, it concluded that the defendant, King, was required to comply with the subpoena to produce the sought court documents from the Victorian proceedings. The court's decision in Tan v King (No 2) provides clarity on the scope and application of consent orders made on the settlement of Victorian proceedings and their relationship with subpoenas to produce documents.