Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2018] NSWSC 1505

Yakiti Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2018] NSWSC 1505

The subpoenas were not set aside because key categories of documents had a sufficient connection with Ms MacDonald's pleaded cross-claim and might assist issues concerning the alleged agreement, the acquisition of The Henley Group assets, and valuation of the alleged lost chance. However, the subpoenas were overbroad in time and in some categories, so they were varied by imposing date limits and deleting unjustified paragraphs, with the notice of motion otherwise dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Procedural Ruling Concerning Subpoenas to Produce / Notice of Motion Filed on 10 August 2018 Seeking to Set Aside Four Subpoenas, Heard by the Duty Judge Before the Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Notice of motion partly successful: the subpoenas were varied, but the motion was otherwise dismissed; costs of the motion were ordered to be Ms MacDonald's costs of the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas to Produce' 'setting Aside or Varying Subpoenas' 'scope and Time Limits of Subpoenas' 'forensic Purpose and Relevance to Pleaded Issues' 'costs of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['subpoenas to Produce' 'setting Aside or Varying Subpoenas' 'scope and Time Limits of Subpoenas' 'forensic Purpose and Relevance to Pleaded Issues' 'costs of Motion']

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; Procedural Ruling Concerning Subpoenas to Produce / Notice of Motion Filed on 10 August 2018 Seeking to Set Aside Four Subpoenas, Heard by the Duty Judge Before the Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the subpoenas issued by Ms MacDonald to Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd, Scott Dickinson, Shane Steinwell and Quadrant Private Equity Pty Ltd should be set aside or varied.' "Whether the documents sought had a sufficient connection with the pleaded cross-claim and could assist Ms MacDonald's case." 'Whether categories of documents sought for valuation of the alleged lost chance were justified despite the absence of current leave for valuation evidence.' 'Whether particular subpoena paragraphs were overbroad or unjustified and should be time-limited or deleted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoenas were not set aside because key categories of documents had a sufficient connection with Ms MacDonald's pleaded cross-claim and might assist issues concerning the alleged agreement, the acquisition of The Henley Group assets, and valuation of the alleged lost chance. However, the subpoenas were overbroad in time and in some categories, so they were varied by imposing date limits and deleting unjustified paragraphs, with the notice of motion otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion partly successful: the subpoenas were varied, but the motion was otherwise dismissed; costs of the motion were ordered to be Ms MacDonald's costs of the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ["Order that the subpoena to produce addressed to Lift Brands Australia Pty Ltd filed on 30 July 2018 be varied so that paragraphs 1 and 3 be limited to the period from 1 September 2016 to 1 March 2017, paragraph 3 be further restricted to documents 'evidencing or relating to the assignment, transfer or grant of the...