Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3) [2001] FCA 81

Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 3) [2001] FCA 81

The applicants' motion to set aside the subpoena was misconceived because the proper issue was inspection of the produced document, not production to the Court. The privilege claim failed in relation to nearly the whole costs agreement, and whether the argument was treated as distinct or as part of the 16 October 2000 hearing, Coleman & Greig should pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion on the usual party and party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding; Costs of Applicants' Motion to Set Aside Subpoena for Production / Reasons for Judgment and Order on Reserved Costs of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Filed on 1 August 2000
Outcome
Applicants' solicitors ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion on the usual party and party basis.
Legal Topics
['subpoena for Production' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs Against Solicitors' 'party and Party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['subpoena for Production' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs Against Solicitors' 'party and Party 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

Federal Court Proceeding; Costs of Applicants' Motion to Set Aside Subpoena for Production / Reasons for Judgment and Order on Reserved Costs of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Filed on 1 August 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Who should pay the costs of the applicants' motion to set aside a subpoena for production issued on the application of the respondents." 'Whether a subpoena for production can be set aside on the ground of legal professional privilege, rather than obeyed with privilege determined after production to the Court.' "Whether the costs of the argument about privilege should be treated separately or as part of the hearing of the respondents' motion for indemnity costs against the applicants' solicitors."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' motion to set aside the subpoena was misconceived because the proper issue was inspection of the produced document, not production to the Court. The privilege claim failed in relation to nearly the whole costs agreement, and whether the argument was treated as distinct or as part of the 16 October 2000 hearing, Coleman & Greig should pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion on the usual party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Applicants' solicitors ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion on the usual party and party basis.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' solicitors, Coleman & Greig, pay the respondents' costs of the applicants' motion brought by notice of motion filed on 1 August 2000 on the usual party and party basis."]