Holon Global Innovations Pty Ltd v Seagate Technology Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 113

Holon Global Innovations Pty Ltd v Seagate Technology Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 113

The subpoenas for production of the Corvaults were set aside because their production to the Court was neither practicable nor intended. The appropriate procedure was a preservation order under UCPR r 25.3, with an agreed inspection regime. Seagate was ordered to pay Dicker's costs, having improperly invoked the subpoena process contrary to the prescribed rules.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Holon Global Innovations Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Holon Global Investments Limited; First Applicant / First Respondent: Dicker Data Financial Services Pty Ltd; Second Applicant / Second Respondent: Dicker Data Limited; Defendant / Respondent / Applicant: Seagate Technology Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (equity Commercial List) / Procedural Motion – Subpoena to Produce and Preservation of Property
Outcome
Subpoenas set aside; preservation and inspection order made; costs against Seagate
Legal Topics
Subpoenas, Preservation of Property, Costs
Civil Procedure Subpoenas Preservation of Property 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holon Global Innovations Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Holon Global Investments Limited

Second Plaintiff

Dicker Data Financial Services Pty Ltd

First Applicant / First Respondent

Dicker Data Limited

Second Applicant / Second Respondent

Seagate Technology Australia Pty Limited

Defendant / Respondent / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (equity Commercial List) / Procedural Motion – Subpoena to Produce and Preservation of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subpoenas for production of large data storage devices should be set aside as oppressive and impracticable
  2. 2 Whether a preservation order under UCPR r 25.3 is the appropriate procedural mechanism
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the party issuing the subpoenas

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoenas for production of the Corvaults were set aside because their production to the Court was neither practicable nor intended. The appropriate procedure was a preservation order under UCPR r 25.3, with an agreed inspection regime. Seagate was ordered to pay Dicker's costs, having improperly invoked the subpoena process contrary to the prescribed rules.

Court Disposition

Subpoenas set aside; preservation and inspection order made; costs against Seagate

Orders

  • The subpoenas issued to Dicker Data Financial Services Pty Ltd and Dicker Data Ltd on 5 August 2024 be set aside.
  • Seagate to pay Dicker's costs of and incidental to the Dicker Motion and the Seagate Motion, costs payable and assessable forthwith.