Hepburn v Teplitzky [2010] FCA 801

Hepburn v Teplitzky [2010] FCA 801

The Court refused the applicants' motion because in penal proceedings it is inappropriate to order discovery or production from a party exposed to penalty, and the principle applies equally to production as it does to discovery, regardless of any alleged waiver of self-incrimination privilege.

Parties
Applicant: Iain Macgregor Hepburn; Applicant: Peter Terence Clarke; Respondent: David Raymond Teplitzky
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Contempt of Court / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Discovery in Penal Proceedings, Privilege Against Self Incrimination
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Discovery in Penal Proceedings Privilege Against Self Incrimination

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Macgregor Hepburn

Applicant

Peter Terence Clarke

Applicant

David Raymond Teplitzky

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Contempt of Court / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to produce computer hard drives for inspection in the context of a contempt application
  2. 2 Whether the privilege against self-incrimination arises or has been waived in penal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the applicants' motion because in penal proceedings it is inappropriate to order discovery or production from a party exposed to penalty, and the principle applies equally to production as it does to discovery, regardless of any alleged waiver of self-incrimination privilege.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicants' notice of motion dated 27 November 2009 is dismissed.