Gamage v Riashi [2023] NSWSC 277

Gamage v Riashi [2023] NSWSC 277

The plaintiff did not establish a sufficient basis to exercise the court's discretion to allow subpoenas to the first defendant and Ms Daly; the relief sought under prayer 3(a) was duplicative of the final relief sought and more appropriately addressed at the substantive hearing. The appropriate course was to stand over prayer 3(a) to the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons and dismiss the remainder of the motion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Don Gamage; First Defendant: Michael Riashi; Second Defendant: Independent Commission Against Corruption
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion) Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Prayer 3(a) stood over; notice of motion otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice of Motion, Leave to Issue Subpoenas, Self Represented Litigant, Surveillance Warrant, ICAC Investigation, Forensic Purpose, Collateral Attack on Warrant
Civil Procedure Notice of Motion Leave to Issue Subpoenas Self Represented Litigant Surveillance Warrant ICAC Investigation Forensic Purpose Collateral Attack on Warrant

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Don Gamage

Plaintiff

Michael Riashi

First Defendant

Independent Commission Against Corruption

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion) Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to a self-represented plaintiff to issue subpoenas under r 7.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the subpoenas sought serve a legitimate forensic purpose
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought constitutes a collateral attack on surveillance warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish a sufficient basis to exercise the court's discretion to allow subpoenas to the first defendant and Ms Daly; the relief sought under prayer 3(a) was duplicative of the final relief sought and more appropriately addressed at the substantive hearing. The appropriate course was to stand over prayer 3(a) to the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons and dismiss the remainder of the motion.

Court Disposition

Prayer 3(a) stood over; notice of motion otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Prayer 3(a) of the motion is stood over to 31 March 2023 to the hearing of the plaintiff's summons.
  • The notice of motion is otherwise dismissed.