Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] NSWSC 284

Markisic v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] NSWSC 284

Leave to issue the subpoenas was refused because the proposed subpoenas would serve no proper purpose in relation to setting aside Patten AJ's judgment, lacked an acceptable evidentiary basis on key allegations, sought to reopen or investigate matters beyond the issues before Patten AJ, and would be oppressive and an abuse of the process of the court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Issue Subpoenas / Application by Self Represented Plaintiffs Under R 7.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (ucpr) for Leave to Issue Subpoenas; Opposed by the Defendant
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'unrepresented Plaintiffs' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas' 'abuse of Process' 'oppressive Subpoenas' 'fishing Expedition']
['practice and Procedure'] ['subpoenas' 'unrepresented Plaintiffs' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas' 'abuse of Process' 'oppressive Subpoenas' 'fishing Expedition']

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

Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to Issue Subpoenas / Application by Self Represented Plaintiffs Under R 7.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (ucpr) for Leave to Issue Subpoenas; Opposed by the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the self-represented plaintiffs should be granted leave under r 7.3 UCPR to issue 23 subpoenas to witnesses to attend and give evidence on an application to set aside an interlocutory judgment of Patten AJ.' 'Whether the proposed subpoenas would serve a legitimate forensic purpose or would be oppressive, irrelevant, a fishing expedition, or an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to issue the subpoenas was refused because the proposed subpoenas would serve no proper purpose in relation to setting aside Patten AJ's judgment, lacked an acceptable evidentiary basis on key allegations, sought to reopen or investigate matters beyond the issues before Patten AJ, and would be oppressive and an abuse of the process of the court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' "The plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the application."]