A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999

A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999

Because transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations in the H brief had been given in evidence in an exempt proceeding, those transcripts fell within Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 75A and were not prohibited from later being given in evidence, but the exception did not extend to audio tapes or other associated information not themselves given in evidence. Documents created, requested, obtained or provided in the course of the joint task force established under New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 (NSW) s 27A came within the statutory privilege in s 29(3), so the Commissioner could not be required to produce them. The subpoena should therefore be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Civil Proceedings Involving a Subpoena for Production / Judgment on the NSW Commissioner for Police's Motion and Objections to Subpoena, Including Telecommunications (interception & Access) Act, Statutory Privilege and Costs Issues
Outcome
Orders made limiting the Commissioner of Police's obligation to produce documents under the subpoena; no order as to costs of the motion; plaintiff ordered to pay the Commissioner's reasonable expenses of compliance with the subpoena excluding costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas for Production' 'restricted Intercepted Information' 'exempt Proceedings' 'statutory Privilege Under New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985' 'reasonable Expenses of Compliance With Subpoena']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'telecommunications Interception' 'privilege' 'costs'] ['subpoenas for Production' 'restricted Intercepted Information' 'exempt Proceedings' 'statutory Privilege Under New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985' 'reasonable Expenses of Compliance With Subpoena']

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

Equity Division Civil Proceedings Involving a Subpoena for Production / Judgment on the NSW Commissioner for Police's Motion and Objections to Subpoena, Including Telecommunications (interception & Access) Act, Statutory Privilege and Costs Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether lawfully intercepted information sought by subpoena was prohibited from being given in evidence by Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 63.' 'Whether the exception in Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 75A applied where transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations had been given in evidence in an exempt proceeding.' 'Whether s 75A extended beyond transcripts given in evidence to audio tapes from which those transcripts were prepared.' 'Whether documents created, obtained or provided in the course of a joint task force established under New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 (NSW) s 27A were protected by statutory privilege under s 29(3).' 'Whether and how the subpoena should be limited under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 33.4.' "What costs orders should be made regarding the motion and the Commissioner's reasonable expenses of compliance with the subpoena."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations in the H brief had been given in evidence in an exempt proceeding, those transcripts fell within Telecommunications (Interception & Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 75A and were not prohibited from later being given in evidence, but the exception did not extend to audio tapes or other associated information not themselves given in evidence. Documents created, requested, obtained or provided in the course of the joint task force established under New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 (NSW) s 27A came within the statutory privilege in s 29(3), so the Commissioner could not be required to produce them. The subpoena should therefore be...

Court Disposition

Orders made limiting the Commissioner of Police's obligation to produce documents under the subpoena; no order as to costs of the motion; plaintiff ordered to pay the Commissioner's reasonable expenses of compliance with the subpoena excluding costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 33.4, in respect of the subpoena for production issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Police dated 9 March 2007, the Commissioner is not required to produce any document which does not fall within any of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 9 of the schedule...