Larter v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1411
The subpoena was set aside because, on the plaintiff's own formulation, the substantive challenge was confined to legal unreasonableness of the orders as outcomes and did not challenge the decision-making process. The Minister's reasons for making the orders therefore would not be substantially relevant: if the orders were legally unreasonable, reasons could not save them, and if they were not legally unreasonable, reasons could not impugn them on that basis. The plaintiff had not sought reasons under UCPR r 59.9, and examining the Minister would likely expand the case into process issues, risking adjournment and undermining the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 November 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure Application in Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Public Health Orders / Defendants' Notices of Motion to Set Aside a Subpoena to Give Evidence and a Notice to Produce
- Outcome
- Subpoena to give evidence issued to the first defendant set aside; paragraph 11 of the notice to produce set aside; costs of the subpoena motion reserved; no order as to costs of the notice to produce motion; directions made for service of proposed further amended summons.
- Legal Topics
- ['subpoena to Give Evidence' 'notice to Produce' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'judicial Review' 'covid 19 Vaccination Public Health Orders' 'statement of Reasons' 'relevance' 'oppression and Competing Parliamentary Obligations']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application in Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Public Health Orders / Defendants' Notices of Motion to Set Aside a Subpoena to Give Evidence and a Notice to Produce
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the subpoena requiring the Minister to attend and give evidence should be set aside under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 33.4.' "Whether evidence from the Minister about his reasons for making the Order, the Amended Order and the Second Order would be relevant to the plaintiff's challenge confined to legal unreasonableness, including lack of proportionality." 'Whether the subpoena was an abuse of process or oppressive where the plaintiff had not sought reasons under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.9 and the Minister had competing parliamentary commitments.' 'Whether paragraph 11 of the notice to produce, seeking documents about consideration of leave for the plaintiff, should be set aside for lack of relevance.']
Ratio Decidendi
The subpoena was set aside because, on the plaintiff's own formulation, the substantive challenge was confined to legal unreasonableness of the orders as outcomes and did not challenge the decision-making process. The Minister's reasons for making the orders therefore would not be substantially relevant: if the orders were legally unreasonable, reasons could not save them, and if they were not legally unreasonable, reasons could not impugn them on that basis. The plaintiff had not sought reasons under UCPR r 59.9, and examining the Minister would likely expand the case into process issues, risking adjournment and undermining the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005...
Court Disposition
Subpoena to give evidence issued to the first defendant set aside; paragraph 11 of the notice to produce set aside; costs of the subpoena motion reserved; no order as to costs of the notice to produce motion; directions made for service of proposed further amended summons.
Orders
- ['Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 33.4, set aside the subpoena to give evidence issued to the first defendant.' 'Reserve the costs of the notice of motion to set aside the subpoena.' 'Set aside paragraph 11 of the notice to produce served by the plaintiff on the defendants.' 'Make no order as...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment