Williams v Homestake Australia Limited And Ors. [2003] NSWLEC 250

Williams v Homestake Australia Limited And Ors. [2003] NSWLEC 250

The subpoena is set aside because the documents called for would only be relevant to the credibility of Mr Oshlack as a witness, thereby offending the credibility rule under s 102 Evidence Act 1995; further, enforcement may also violate s 120 of the Act.

Parties
Applicant: N. Williams; First Respondent: Homestake Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Barrick Corporation; Third Respondent: The Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Subpoena
Outcome
Subpoena set aside
Legal Topics
Subpoena, Setting Aside Subpoena, Evidence Admissibility
Practice and Procedure Subpoena Setting Aside Subpoena Evidence Admissibility

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Williams

Applicant

Homestake Australia Limited

First Respondent

Barrick Corporation

Second Respondent

The Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subpoena served on Mr Oshlack should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether subpoena offends the credibility rule under s 102 Evidence Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether subpoena may violate s 120 Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoena is set aside because the documents called for would only be relevant to the credibility of Mr Oshlack as a witness, thereby offending the credibility rule under s 102 Evidence Act 1995; further, enforcement may also violate s 120 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Subpoena set aside

Orders

  • The subpoena issued to Mr Alan Oshlack is set aside.