Wong v Sklavos

Case [2014] FCAFC 120

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wong v Sklavos [2014] FCAFC 120

Citation: Wong v Sklavos [2014] FCAFC 120
Appeal from: Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2014] FCA 476
Parties:

DR DAVID WONG AND OTHERS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE v ANGELO SKLAVOS AND THE AUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF DERMATOLOGISTS

DR ANDREW SATCHELL v ANGELO SKLAVOS AND THE AUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF DERMATOLOGISTS
File numbers: NSD 520 of 2014
NSD 522 of 2014
Judges: JACOBSON, WHITE AND GLEESON JJ
Date of judgment: 12 September 2014
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeals – appeals from interlocutory judgment – appeals from dismissal of interlocutory applications to set aside subpoenas – caution to be exercised in appellate review of procedural discretion – whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion – whether documents sought sufficiently relevant – whether subpoenas oppressive

Held: documents sought had apparent relevance to proof of loss of earning capacity – confidentiality of documents sought did not result in oppression – no error by primary judge – appeals dismissed

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Alliance Petroleum Australia NL v The Australian Gaslight Company (1983) 34 SASR 215
Allister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Western Power Corporation (1998) 19 WAR 350
Brouwer v Titan Corporation Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 241
Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 398; (2010) 269 ALR 76
Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Ltd [2005] FCA 558
Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd (2001) FCA 1040; (2001) 110 FCR 157
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
ICAP Australia Pty Ltd v BGC Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 307
In the matter of North Coast Transit Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1912
Kealley v Jones [1979] 1 NSWLR 723
McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 2) [2011] FCA 724
McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233; (2005) 221 ALR 785
National Employers Mutual General Association v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
National Instruments Pty Ltd v Gilles (1975) 39 ALJR 349
Norris v Blake [No 2] (1997) 41 NSWLR 49
R v Barton (1981) 2 NSWLR 414
Santos Ltd v Pipelines Authority of South Australia (1996) 66 SASR 38
Spencer Motors Pty Ltd v LNC Industries Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 921
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 364
Trade Practice Commission v Arnotts Ltd (No 2) (1989) 88 ALR 90
Date of hearing: 13 August 2014
Date of last submissions: 13 August 2014
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 40
In NSD 520 of 2014:

Counsel for the Appellants:

Ms Margaret Allars SC
Solicitor for the Appellants: TressCox Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Ian Neil SC with Mr…

Continue reading Wong v Sklavos

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wong v Sklavos [2014] FCAFC 120
Case
[2014] FCAFC 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wong v Sklavos involved an appeal against the dismissal of interlocutory applications to set aside subpoenas issued by the primary judge. The appellants contested the subpoenas on the grounds of relevance and oppressiveness. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge had erred in exercising his discretion in relation to the subpoenas, and whether the documents sought were sufficiently relevant and not oppressive.

The primary issues before the court were whether the documents sought by the subpoenas had sufficient relevance to the proof of the loss of earning capacity, and whether the subpoenas were oppressive due to the confidentiality of the documents sought. The court had to consider the standard of relevance required for the documents and whether the primary judge's exercise of discretion was in error.

The court found that the documents sought had an apparent relevance to the proof of loss of earning capacity, and therefore the primary judge had not erred in finding the documents relevant. Additionally, the court held that the confidentiality of the documents did not result in oppression. The court emphasised the need for caution in appellate review of procedural discretion and found no error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The orders made by the court were that the appeals be dismissed, and the appellants were to pay the first respondent's costs. The entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants are to pay the first respondent’s costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.