Graham Evans Pty Ltd v Stencraft Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 958

Graham Evans Pty Ltd v Stencraft Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 958

The court held that Stencraft's inquiry into whether Evans would have made a profit on the project was legitimate, but Watpac's historical performance and internal cost and revenue figures were not relevant to that inquiry on the pleaded issues and their production would be fishing, unfair and oppressive. The subpoena was therefore allowed only as to documents describing the project, and amended to delete the internal costing categories in items 3 and 4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Pursuant to O 27 R 9 of the Federal Court Rules to Set Aside a Subpoena for Production of Documents / Interlocutory Motion in Principal Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed in part; subpoena amended by deleting items 3 and 4 and maintained as to items 1 and 2.
Legal Topics
['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'setting Aside Subpoena' 'relevance' 'fishing Inquiry' 'oppression' 'non Party Production']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'setting Aside Subpoena' 'relevance' 'fishing Inquiry' 'oppression' 'non Party Production']

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

Notice of Motion Pursuant to O 27 R 9 of the Federal Court Rules to Set Aside a Subpoena for Production of Documents / Interlocutory Motion in Principal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the subpoena directed to Watpac Australia Pty Ltd should be set aside under O 27 r 9 of the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether Watpac's internal costing, revenue and cost ledger documents for the Admiralty Towers Stage 1 project were relevant to the pleaded issues concerning Graham Evans Pty Ltd's alleged lost profit or lost opportunity to earn profit." 'Whether compliance with the subpoena would be unfair or oppressive to Watpac because the documents sought were private information and amounted to fishing.' 'Whether documents identifying and describing the project, including the contract, bills of quantity, specifications, drawings and final as-constructed drawings, should be produced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Stencraft's inquiry into whether Evans would have made a profit on the project was legitimate, but Watpac's historical performance and internal cost and revenue figures were not relevant to that inquiry on the pleaded issues and their production would be fishing, unfair and oppressive. The subpoena was therefore allowed only as to documents describing the project, and amended to delete the internal costing categories in items 3 and 4.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed in part; subpoena amended by deleting items 3 and 4 and maintained as to items 1 and 2.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion be dismissed, except that the subpoena, the subject of the notice of motion, be amended by deleting the documents referred to in items 3 and 4 of the Schedule.' 'On or before 24 September 1997, Watpac Australia Pty Ltd produce to the Registry the documents in its possession, power or custody...