GRANT A DITFORD v LYNETTE KJ WILD [1989] NSWCA 62

GRANT A DITFORD v LYNETTE KJ WILD [1989] NSWCA 62

There was no evidence that Ms Wild was the proper officer or had the necessary possession, custody, or control of the documents required by the subpoena, nor did she intentionally or recklessly fail to comply; thus, no contempt was established against her.

Parties
Opponent: Grant A Ditford; Claimant: Lynette KJ Wild; (former Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs): William George Hayden; Counsel for the Opponent: Mr JR Sackar QC; Counsel for the Opponent: Mr J Agius; Solicitors for the Opponent: Australian Government Solicitor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Determination of Summons for Contempt; Judgment on Dismissal and Costs
Outcome
Summons for contempt dismissed as against Ms Wild; no order as to costs, including reserved costs against Mr Hayden.
Legal Topics
Subpoena Duces Tecum, Addressing Subpoenas to Commonwealth Departments, Role of Proper Officer, Contempt for Failure to Produce Documents
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Subpoena Duces Tecum Addressing Subpoenas to Commonwealth Departments Role of Proper Officer Contempt for Failure to Produce Documents

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant A Ditford

Opponent

Lynette KJ Wild

Claimant

William George Hayden

(former Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs)

Mr JR Sackar QC

Counsel for the Opponent

Mr J Agius

Counsel for the Opponent

Australian Government Solicitor

Solicitors for the Opponent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Determination of Summons for Contempt; Judgment on Dismissal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Wild was in contempt of court for failing to produce documents in answer to subpoena
  2. 2 Appropriate method of addressing a subpoena to a Commonwealth Department

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Ms Wild was the proper officer or had the necessary possession, custody, or control of the documents required by the subpoena, nor did she intentionally or recklessly fail to comply; thus, no contempt was established against her.

Court Disposition

Summons for contempt dismissed as against Ms Wild; no order as to costs, including reserved costs against Mr Hayden.

Orders

  • Summons for contempt dismissed as against Ms LKJ Wild.
  • No order as to costs in respect of proceedings against Ms Wild and the reserved costs in the proceedings against Mr Hayden.