Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 196

Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 196

It is not fishing or oppressive for a respondent applying for security for costs to seek production of specific documents necessary to test assertions made by a corporate applicant about its financial capacity when the applicant has referred to those documents in sworn evidence; however, the subpoena must not be overly broad or oppressive, and production should be limited to those documents to which the applicant has referred, and access should be restricted to protect commercially sensitive information.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd.; Respondent/cross Claimant: White Industries (Qld) Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory) With Subpoena Duces Tecum and Notice to Produce / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders on Production of Documents Pending Hearing for Security for Costs
Outcome
Order made for partial compliance with subpoena; subpoena otherwise set aside; motion under Order 15 r.10 dismissed; access to documents restricted; costs reserved as costs in the application for security for costs; hearing for security for costs set for specified date.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Notice to Produce, Production of Documents, Abuse of Power, Fishing, Oppressive Subpoenas, Ulterior Purpose, Interlocutory Proceedings
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Subpoena Duces Tecum Notice to Produce Production of Documents Abuse of Power Fishing Oppressive Subpoenas +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd.

Applicant/cross Respondent

White Industries (Qld) Pty. Ltd.

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory) With Subpoena Duces Tecum and Notice to Produce / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders on Production of Documents Pending Hearing for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subpoena duces tecum or notice to produce was an abuse of power, fishing, oppressive, or for an ulterior purpose
  2. 2 Extent to which a party needs to disclose documents relating to its financial position for the purposes of security for costs
  3. 3 Operation of Order 15 rr.10 and 11 of the Federal Court Rules in relation to interlocutory proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

It is not fishing or oppressive for a respondent applying for security for costs to seek production of specific documents necessary to test assertions made by a corporate applicant about its financial capacity when the applicant has referred to those documents in sworn evidence; however, the subpoena must not be overly broad or oppressive, and production should be limited to those documents to which the applicant has referred, and access should be restricted to protect commercially sensitive information.

Court Disposition

Order made for partial compliance with subpoena; subpoena otherwise set aside; motion under Order 15 r.10 dismissed; access to documents restricted; costs reserved as costs in the application for security for costs; hearing for security for costs set for specified date.

Orders

  • Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. by 5.00 p.m. on 19 April 1988 to supply to solicitors for WIQ copies of the profit and loss statement, balance sheet, auditor's/directors' reports/notes, income tax return for year ended 30 June 1987, instruments of mortgage on the shopping centre land, and the Jones Lang...
  • Subpoena set aside except to the extent specified.