Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 181

Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 181

Material sought in the subpoenas is sufficiently relevant to the issue of Mr Gilmore's capacity to give instructions and pursue appeal rights during the relevant period. Production of documents is not, at this stage, oppressive; privilege claims and any associated burden arise only upon application for access to produced documents.

Parties
First Appellant: Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: Daniel Moore; Respondent: Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Subpoenas and Notice to Produce
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs to respondent; proceedings stood over to Registrar's list.
Legal Topics
Subpoenas, Notice to Produce, Forensic Purpose, Oppression, Extension of Time, Client Legal Privilege
Civil Procedure Subpoenas Notice to Produce Forensic Purpose Oppression Extension of Time Client Legal Privilege

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd

First Appellant

Daniel Moore

Second Appellant

Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Subpoenas and Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents sought by subpoenas and notice to produce are sufficiently relevant to the determination of the issue regarding delay in filing appeal
  2. 2 Whether the subpoenas and notice to produce are oppressive in light of potential client legal privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Material sought in the subpoenas is sufficiently relevant to the issue of Mr Gilmore's capacity to give instructions and pursue appeal rights during the relevant period. Production of documents is not, at this stage, oppressive; privilege claims and any associated burden arise only upon application for access to produced documents.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs to respondent; proceedings stood over to Registrar's list.

Orders

  • Notice of motion filed on 17 May 2019 dismissed.
  • The applicant to pay the respondent's costs.