Zreika v El Haddad

The case of Zreika v El Haddad involved the applicant seeking to set aside a subpoena issued to Optus Mobile Pty Ltd. The subpoena had been issued in the context of ongoing litigation between the parties, with the applicant contending that the subpoena did not serve a legitimate forensic purpose. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the subpoena was issued for a legitimate forensic purpose and, if not, whether the applicant should be granted an order for indemnity costs.

The court examined the purpose behind the subpoena and found that it did not serve a legitimate forensic purpose. The court reasoned that the information sought was not necessary for the determination of the issues in the proceeding, and the subpoena was therefore improperly issued. As a result, the court set aside the subpoena. The court also considered the applicant's request for an indemnity costs order, which would require the second defendant to pay the applicant's costs forthwith. However, the court declined to grant this order, finding that the circumstances did not warrant such an outcome. The court did order that the second defendant pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion.

In summary, the court set aside the subpoena to Optus Mobile Pty Ltd, ordered the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion, and refused the plaintiff's application for an indemnity costs order.