Sampi v State of Western Australia [2001] FCA 288

Sampi v State of Western Australia [2001] FCA 288

Given the substantial volume of fieldwork material and the fact that the trial was scheduled to commence in about seven weeks, fairness and the interests of justice, guided by the experts' duty to the Court, required the experts to elect either to comply fully with the orders dated 22 February 2001 by 6 April 2001 or to produce the field notes and related documents to the Court forthwith, with access to abide further order. The first respondents' subpoena application was stood over generally with liberty to restore.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Expert Report; Application for Issue of Subpoena for Production of Experts' Field Notes / Further Renewed Application to Issue Subpoenas for Production
Outcome
The Court made further procedural orders and stood over generally the first respondents' application for leave to issue subpoenas, with liberty to restore.
Legal Topics
['expert Reports' 'subpoenas for Production' "anthropologists' Field Notes" 'federal Court Guidelines for Expert Witnesses' "experts' Duty to the Court"]
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Reports' 'subpoenas for Production' "anthropologists' Field Notes" 'federal Court Guidelines for Expert Witnesses' "experts' Duty to the Court"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Expert Report; Application for Issue of Subpoena for Production of Experts' Field Notes / Further Renewed Application to Issue Subpoenas for Production

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, on the further renewed application, leave should be given to issue subpoenas for production of anthropologists' field notes." "What further order should be made concerning the experts' responses to the orders dated 22 February 2001, having regard to the volume of material and the trial timetable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the substantial volume of fieldwork material and the fact that the trial was scheduled to commence in about seven weeks, fairness and the interests of justice, guided by the experts' duty to the Court, required the experts to elect either to comply fully with the orders dated 22 February 2001 by 6 April 2001 or to produce the field notes and related documents to the Court forthwith, with access to abide further order. The first respondents' subpoena application was stood over generally with liberty to restore.

Court Disposition

The Court made further procedural orders and stood over generally the first respondents' application for leave to issue subpoenas, with liberty to restore.

Orders

  • ['That the solicitors for the applicants request that Ms Glaskin and Mr Bagshaw state in writing on or before 26 March 2001 whether they elect to either (1) comply fully with the orders dated 22 February 2001 on or before 6 April 2001 or (2) produce the documents described in par 1 of the reasons given on 22...