Joseph v Spencer (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 130

Joseph v Spencer (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 130

The Court was satisfied that Rabebi Pty Ltd trading as PRD Architects had not complied with the subpoena because Mr Rasa had improperly exercised his own discretion about relevance and production. The proper course was to order further compliance, but not to order Mr Joseph to pay Mr Rasa's attendance costs or to make any further costs of compliance order in favour of PRD Architects because those costs arose from the recipient's non-compliance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Tree Dispute Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Subpoena Compliance
Outcome
Further compliance with the subpoena ordered; no order for Mr Rasa's attendance costs; no further costs of compliance order in favour of PRD Architects.
Legal Topics
['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'non Compliance With Subpoena' 'costs of Attendance' 'costs of Compliance']
['land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'non Compliance With Subpoena' 'costs of Attendance' 'costs of Compliance']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Tree Dispute Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Subpoena Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Proper Officer of Rabebi Pty Ltd trading as PRD Architects had complied with the subpoena to produce documents filed on 22 July 2021.' 'Whether further orders should be made for compliance with the subpoena.' "Whether Mr Joseph should pay Mr Rasa's costs of attendance to give evidence about non-compliance." 'Whether a further costs of compliance order should be made in favour of PRD Architects.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that Rabebi Pty Ltd trading as PRD Architects had not complied with the subpoena because Mr Rasa had improperly exercised his own discretion about relevance and production. The proper course was to order further compliance, but not to order Mr Joseph to pay Mr Rasa's attendance costs or to make any further costs of compliance order in favour of PRD Architects because those costs arose from the recipient's non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Further compliance with the subpoena ordered; no order for Mr Rasa's attendance costs; no further costs of compliance order in favour of PRD Architects.

Orders

  • ['The Proper Officer of Rabebi Pty Ltd trading as PRD Architects is to comply with the terms of the subpoena filed on 22 July 2021 and served on the firm.' 'All further documents to be provided in response to the terms of the subpoena are to be provided to the Registrar of the Court no later than a fortnight from...