GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWCA 90

GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWCA 90

The motion was largely refused because the requested further evidence was for the Full Court, access was sought to unidentified documents or documents produced under subpoenas that had been set aside, the proposed subpoenas were overbroad and sought material from periods before the first instance hearing, there was insufficient time and no evidence that recipients could comply, and the proposed subpoenas to give evidence lacked any identified relevance to the grounds of appeal. The applicant could rely on the 3-volume tender bundle because it had been served and contained documents already in evidence, subject to any objection at the appeal hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in an Appeal by Way of Rehearing / In Chambers Motion Before a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to issue subpoenas for production and to give evidence was refused; leave to rely on the 3-volume tender bundle was granted subject to objection; the notice of motion was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal' 'access to Documents Produced on Subpoena' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas for Production' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas to Give Evidence' 'appeal Books and Tender Bundles' 'child Welfare Evidence on Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'children'] ['leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal' 'access to Documents Produced on Subpoena' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas for Production' 'leave to Issue Subpoenas to Give Evidence' 'appeal Books and Tender Bundles' 'child Welfare Evidence on Appeal']

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

Procedural Ruling in an Appeal by Way of Rehearing / In Chambers Motion Before a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a single judge should grant leave to adduce further evidence under Supreme Court Act 1970, ss 75A(7), (8) and (9).' 'Whether the applicant should have access to documents said to have been produced on subpoenas that had been set aside.' "Whether leave should be granted to issue subpoenas for production to Westmead Children's Hospital, Blacktown Hospital, Impact Youth Services and Dr Moussad." 'Whether leave should be granted to issue subpoenas to give evidence to Professors Pickles, Einfeld and Jureidini.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on her 3-volume tender bundle and 3-volume black books.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was largely refused because the requested further evidence was for the Full Court, access was sought to unidentified documents or documents produced under subpoenas that had been set aside, the proposed subpoenas were overbroad and sought material from periods before the first instance hearing, there was insufficient time and no evidence that recipients could comply, and the proposed subpoenas to give evidence lacked any identified relevance to the grounds of appeal. The applicant could rely on the 3-volume tender bundle because it had been served and contained documents already in evidence, subject to any objection at the appeal hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to issue subpoenas for production and to give evidence was refused; leave to rely on the 3-volume tender bundle was granted subject to objection; the notice of motion was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Leave to issue subpoenas for production to Westmead Children's Hospital, Blacktown Hospital, Impact Youth Services and Dr Moussad is refused." 'Leave to issue subpoenas to give evidence to Professors Pickles, Einfeld and Jureidini is refused.' 'Leave is granted to the applicant GR to rely on her "3-volume tender...