Gazal v Setiawan & Anor [2024] NSWSC 1046

Gazal v Setiawan & Anor [2024] NSWSC 1046

Mutual general discovery is appropriate given the confined factual controversy and history of interlocutory applications; appointment of a referee is unnecessary due to discovery obligations; legal advice costs for compliance with subpoenas are not recoverable unless seeking such advice was reasonable; the cap of $30,000 on the freezing order is inadequate given the scope of proceedings and should be increased to $250,000.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nahi Nasri Gazal; First Defendant: Fransisca Setiawan; Second Defendant: Oezlem Topaloglu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motions Prior to Trial
Outcome
Motions determined; plaintiff's motion dismissed; general discovery ordered; subpoena set aside; freezing order varied; costs in the cause; general discovery order stayed until further order.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Subpoenas, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Discovery Subpoenas Freezing Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nahi Nasri Gazal

Plaintiff

Fransisca Setiawan

First Defendant

Oezlem Topaloglu

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motions Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should general discovery be ordered?
  2. 2 Should a referee be appointed to facilitate discovery?
  3. 3 Are costs for compliance with subpoenas recoverable, and under what circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

Mutual general discovery is appropriate given the confined factual controversy and history of interlocutory applications; appointment of a referee is unnecessary due to discovery obligations; legal advice costs for compliance with subpoenas are not recoverable unless seeking such advice was reasonable; the cap of $30,000 on the freezing order is inadequate given the scope of proceedings and should be increased to $250,000.

Court Disposition

Motions determined; plaintiff's motion dismissed; general discovery ordered; subpoena set aside; freezing order varied; costs in the cause; general discovery order stayed until further order.

Orders

  • The Court dismisses the motion of the plaintiff, notice of which was filed on 4 July 2023 and amended by notice filed on 18 October 2023.
  • The Court sets aside the subpoena issued to Francom Legal Pty Ltd issued by the plaintiff.