WOOKEY -v- QUIGLEY [No 5] [2011] WASC 275

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASC 275
Published:	06/10/2011
Case No:	CIV:1176/2009	Heard:	7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	7/09/11
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Inspection denied, save for limited categories
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DARRYL ANNE WOOKEY JOHN ROBERT QUIGLEY
Catchwords:	Subpoena Inspection objected to by party Abuse and irrelevant Case management considerations
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Western Power Corporation (1998) 19 WAR 350 Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 276 Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [No 3] [2009] WASC 67 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 Wookey v Quigley [No 3] [2011] WASC 227

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WOOKEY -v- QUIGLEY [No 5] [2011] WASC 275 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 PUBLISHED : 6 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 1176 of 2009 BETWEEN : DARRYL ANNE WOOKEY

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN ROBERT QUIGLEY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Subpoena - Inspection objected to by party - Abuse and irrelevant - Case management considerations

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Inspection denied, save for limited categories

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

Defendant : Ms C Galati

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

Defendant : Edwards Wallace

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

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Western Power Corporation (1998) 19 WAR 350
Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 276
Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [No 3] [2009] WASC 67
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Wookey v Quigley [No 3] [2011] WASC 227

(Page 3)

KENNETH MARTIN J

(This judgment was delivered ex temporaneously on 7 September 2011 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 I am dealing with the plaintiff's objections to the defendant's application for access to documents produced to the court by two parties in response to the defendant's two subpoenas for documents which are returnable before trial.

2 The first of the subpoenas was issued to the Commissioner of Police. It seeks (by reference to a schedule) some 11 distinct categories of documents, a number of which are subcategorised into further classes of documents. The second subpoena was answered by the Department of Corrective Services. It was issued to the Commissioner, Mr Ian Johnson. It seeks only two narrower categories of documents. First, the records of visitors to Mr David Francis Everett at Casuarina Prison from August 1992 to 2002. Second, the prison file of David Everett.

3 Both subpoenas have been answered by the delivery of documents to the Registrar of this Court in the period…

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 Wookey v Quigley [No 5] 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: [2011] WASC 275
Decision Date: 6 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wookey v Quigley [No 5], the primary dispute arose between the plaintiff, Wookey, and the defendant, Quigley, concerning the validity and scope of a subpoena issued by Wookey to Quigley. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Wookey sought to compel Quigley to inspect and identify documents relevant to the case, but Quigley objected, asserting that the subpoena was overly broad and irrelevant.

The court had to decide whether the subpoena, which sought inspection and identification of documents without limitation, was justified and whether the objections raised by Quigley were valid. The primary legal issues included whether the subpoena was relevant to the proceedings and whether it was reasonable to expect the defendant to inspect all documents without specification. The court also needed to consider case management principles and whether denying the subpoena would unduly prejudice the plaintiff's case.

The court found that while the subpoena was relevant to the proceedings, the broad scope was problematic. The court emphasised the importance of case management in ensuring that the proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary expense. The court held that the subpoena was overly broad and that the objections raised by Quigley were justified to an extent. Consequently, the court denied the application for inspection in its entirety, except for certain limited categories of documents deemed relevant by the court. This decision balanced the need for thorough investigation with the principles of fairness and efficiency in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Inspection denied, save for limited categories

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.