Craig v Johnson (No. 4) [2021] NSWSC 81

Craig v Johnson (No. 4) [2021] NSWSC 81

Leave to issue the subpoenas was refused because the proposed subpoenas, even as revised, would necessarily produce thousands of irrelevant telephone records, were oppressive, and had questionable forensic purpose or utility; existing material already evidenced the 9 September 2013 call, and the dispute about the 17 September 2013 call concerned its content rather than whether it occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings for Damages for Professional Negligence; Procedural Application for Leave to Issue Subpoenas / Notice of Motion Filed on 27 October 2020 Decided on the Papers
Outcome
The plaintiffs' application for leave to issue subpoenas was rejected, the notice of motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['leave to Issue Subpoena' 'self Represented Litigant' 'oppressive Subpoena' 'irrelevant Material' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence'] ['leave to Issue Subpoena' 'self Represented Litigant' 'oppressive Subpoena' 'irrelevant Material' 'costs']

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

Common Law Proceedings for Damages for Professional Negligence; Procedural Application for Leave to Issue Subpoenas / Notice of Motion Filed on 27 October 2020 Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the self-represented plaintiffs should be granted leave to issue subpoenas to Optus and Telstra.' 'Whether the proposed subpoenas were oppressive or sought material irrelevant to the issues in the proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed subpoenas had legitimate forensic purpose or utility.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to issue the subpoenas was refused because the proposed subpoenas, even as revised, would necessarily produce thousands of irrelevant telephone records, were oppressive, and had questionable forensic purpose or utility; existing material already evidenced the 9 September 2013 call, and the dispute about the 17 September 2013 call concerned its content rather than whether it occurred.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' application for leave to issue subpoenas was rejected, the notice of motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs' application for leave to issue subpoenas to Optus and Telstra is rejected." "The plaintiffs' notice of motion filed on 27 October 2020 is dismissed." "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the motion."]