Lu v Minter (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 503

Lu v Minter (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 503

Leave was refused because the pleadings had not closed, the proposed subpoenae were premature in defamation proceedings, many requests were oppressive, garbled or incomprehensible, the subpoenas appeared to be fishing expeditions, discovery procedures were available against opposing parties, the plaintiff did not propose to provide conduct money, and issuing seven subpoenae would burden the defendants, third parties and court resources contrary to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Application for Leave Under UCPR R 7.3 to Issue Two Subpoenae to Give Evidence and Five Subpoenae to Produce Documents; Defendants' Application for Summary Dismissal Pending
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'leave to Issue Subpoena by Self Represented Litigant' 'summary Dismissal' 'case Management' 'fishing Expedition' 'discovery' 'overarching Purpose']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['subpoenas' 'leave to Issue Subpoena by Self Represented Litigant' 'summary Dismissal' 'case Management' 'fishing Expedition' 'discovery' 'overarching Purpose']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Application for Leave Under UCPR R 7.3 to Issue Two Subpoenae to Give Evidence and Five Subpoenae to Produce Documents; Defendants' Application for Summary Dismissal Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the self-represented plaintiff should be granted leave under UCPR r 7.3 to issue two subpoenae to give evidence and five subpoenae to produce documents.' 'Whether the proposed subpoenae were premature, oppressive, or amounted to fishing expeditions in defamation proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed subpoenae would impose an unjustified burden on parties, third parties and court resources contrary to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the pleadings had not closed, the proposed subpoenae were premature in defamation proceedings, many requests were oppressive, garbled or incomprehensible, the subpoenas appeared to be fishing expeditions, discovery procedures were available against opposing parties, the plaintiff did not propose to provide conduct money, and issuing seven subpoenae would burden the defendants, third parties and court resources contrary to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's application for leave under UCPR r 7.3 to issue two subpoenae to give evidence and five subpoenae to produce documents refused."]