Daniel Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 501

Daniel Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 501

The subpoena was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition; the documents sought were not relevant to the substantive issues or to Mr Jackson’s opinions, and any alleged lack of independence or failure to comply with internal protocols would not have affected the conclusions in Mr Jackson’s report.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Subpoena
Outcome
Subpoena set aside; costs awarded to Ernst & Young
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'application to Set Aside Subpoena' 'subpoenas Relevant to Credit' 'fishing Expedition' 'procedural Rulings']
['civil Procedure'] ['subpoenas' 'application to Set Aside Subpoena' 'subpoenas Relevant to Credit' 'fishing Expedition' 'procedural Rulings']

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 Commercial List / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the subpoena addressed to Ernst & Young should be set aside as fishing or speculative' 'Whether documents sought were relevant to the credit of Mr Jackson or the substantive issues in the proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoena was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition; the documents sought were not relevant to the substantive issues or to Mr Jackson’s opinions, and any alleged lack of independence or failure to comply with internal protocols would not have affected the conclusions in Mr Jackson’s report.

Court Disposition

Subpoena set aside; costs awarded to Ernst & Young

Orders

  • ['Order pursuant to r 33.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the subpoena addressed to Ernst & Young and filed on 10 March 2022 be set aside' "Order that the plaintiffs pay Ernst & Young's costs of and incidental to the motion filed on 11 April 2022"]