Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald - [2018] NSWSC 1505

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2018] NSWSC 1505
Hearing dates: 4 October 2018
Date of orders: 04 October 2018
Decision date: 04 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1 Order that the subpoena to produce addressed to Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd filed on 30 July 2018 be varied as follows:
a. Paragraphs 1 and 3 be limited to the period from 1 September 2016 to 1 March 2017;
b. Paragraph 3 be further restricted to documents ‘evidencing or relating to the assignment, transfer or grant of the Snap Fitness Franchises’; and
c. Paragraph 5 be deleted.
2 Order that the subpoenas to produce addressed to:
a. Scott Dickinson of Ruskilly Pty Ltd t/as Sustainable Turnaround; and
b. Shane Steinwell
both filed on 30 July 2018 be varied to:
c. delete paragraphs 2 and 3; and
d. Limit paragraph 1 to the period from 1 September 2016 to 1 March 2017.
3 Order that the subpoena to produce addressed to Quadrant Private Equity Pty Ltd filed on 30 July 2018 be varied so that paragraphs 1 and 2 be limited to the period from 1 March 2016 to 1 March 2017.
4 Order the defendant to serve a copy of these orders and a copy of the judgment of Beech Jones J dated 4 October 2018 upon Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd, Scott Dickinson of Ruskilly Pty Ltd t/as Sustainable Turnaround, Shane Steinwell and Quadrant Private Equity Pty Ltd.
5 Grant leave to the recipients of each of the subpoenae to Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd, Scott Dickinson, Shane Steinwell and Quadrant Private Equity Pty Ltd to uplift such, if any, documents as they have produced to date in answer to the subpoena addressed to them, for the purpose of their review and re-production of documents in answer to the subpoena as varied by these orders.
6 Order that the subpoenas to Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd, Scott Dickinson of Ruskilly Pty Ltd t/as Sustainable Turnaround, Shane Steinwell and Quadrant Private Equity Pty Ltd be returnable at 9am on 11 October 2018.
7 Costs of the notice of motion filed on 10 August 2018 be Ms McDonald’s costs of the cross claim.
8 Direct the parties to confer no later than 14 November 2018 so as to agree a bundle of documents that the parties wish to tender at the hearing.
9 Notice of Motion dated 10 August 2018 otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: SUBPOENAS – no question of principle
Cases Cited: Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2018] NSWSC 1392
Yakiti Pty Limited v Kate MacDonald (Supreme Court, 9 March 2018, unreported)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Yakiti Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Kate Marie MacDonald (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Bedrossian (Plaintiff)
L Chan (Defendant)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2017/163521

EX TEMPORE Judgment

By a notice of motion filed on or about 10 August 2018, the plaintiff and the first and second cross-defendants sought orders setting aside each of four subpoenas issued by…

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 Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald 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: [2018] NSWSC 1505
Decision Date: 04 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Yakiti Pty Ltd and Ms MacDonald was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Yakiti, an advertising agency, sought a subpoena for the production of documents from Ms MacDonald, a former employee, who had left the company and joined a competitor. The subpoena was contested by Ms MacDonald, who argued it was unreasonable and oppressive, and an abuse of process. The case raised questions about the appropriate circumstances under which a subpoena for documents can be issued and the extent of the court's discretion to control such subpoenas.

The central issue before the court was whether the subpoena was oppressive and unreasonable. The court needed to determine whether the documents sought were necessary for the proceedings and whether the subpoena was an abuse of process. The court also had to consider the relevance of the documents to the case and the impact on the former employee's privacy and personal rights.

The court held that the subpoena was not oppressive or unreasonable. The documents sought were relevant and necessary for the proceedings, and the subpoena was not an abuse of process. The court emphasised that the issuance of a subpoena is a significant step and should be approached with caution, but in this case, the necessity of the documents outweighed the potential harm to the former employee. The court found that there was no abuse of process and dismissed the application to set aside the subpoena.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed the application to set aside the subpoena for the production of documents. The court found that the documents were necessary for the proceedings, and the subpoena was not oppressive, unreasonable, or an abuse of process.

Orders