Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2007] FCA 1865

Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2007] FCA 1865

The subpoenas were set aside because the substantive issue concerned the respondent's conduct for a short period on 5 May 2004, while the subpoenas sought broad communications over nearly four years and were directed to possible material for cross-examination rather than relevant issues; compliance would also be oppressive, including requiring a search of 100 boxes and documents that might not relate to Mr Feehan. Section 824 did not prevent a costs order because the applicants on the motion were not parties to the substantive proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Subpoenas / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Application allowed with costs; both subpoenas set aside.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'application to Set Aside Subpoena' 'fishing Subpoena' 'oppression' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'workplace Relations'] ['subpoenas' 'application to Set Aside Subpoena' 'fishing Subpoena' 'oppression' 'costs']

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

Application to Set Aside Subpoenas / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the subpoenas were relevant to the issues in the substantive proceeding or were fishing for possible evidence.' 'Whether the subpoenas were oppressive.' 'Whether s 824 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) prevented a costs order in favour of the applicants on the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoenas were set aside because the substantive issue concerned the respondent's conduct for a short period on 5 May 2004, while the subpoenas sought broad communications over nearly four years and were directed to possible material for cross-examination rather than relevant issues; compliance would also be oppressive, including requiring a search of 100 boxes and documents that might not relate to Mr Feehan. Section 824 did not prevent a costs order because the applicants on the motion were not parties to the substantive proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application allowed with costs; both subpoenas set aside.

Orders

  • ['The subpoena directed to Mr Robert Stewart of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside.' 'The subpoena directed to Mr Chris Schutz, General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes issued by the respondent on 12...