Haragli v Tan [2021] NSWSC 1581

The subpoena was not set aside because the documents sought have apparent relevance to issues in dispute and are not oppressively broad; privacy concerns alone do not justify refusal; practical difficulties in responding are trial management issues rather than bases for setting aside; plaintiff is also permitted to rely upon the late-served expert report.

Parties: Plaintiff: Ophelia Fatima Haragli; Defendant: Clifford Tan
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 07 December 2021
Procedural Posture: Civil / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome: Plaintiff's application to set aside paragraph 4 of the subpoena dismissed; costs of the motion to be defendant's costs in the proceedings; plaintiff permitted to rely upon Dr Champion's late-served report and Dr Champion may participate in the expert conclave.
Legal Topics: Subpoena, Discovery, Privacy, Expert Evidence

Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Subpoena Discovery Privacy Expert Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Ophelia Fatima Haragli

Plaintiff

Clifford Tan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether paragraph 4 of the subpoena should be set aside for lack of legitimate forensic purpose
2 Whether the subpoena was too broad or oppressive
3 Whether the subpoena infringed the plaintiff's privacy

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to set aside paragraph 4 of the subpoena dismissed; costs of the motion to be defendant's costs in the proceedings; plaintiff permitted to rely upon Dr Champion's late-served report and Dr Champion may participate in the expert conclave.

Orders

Dismiss plaintiff's application to set aside paragraph 4 of the defendant's subpoena.
Costs of the motion to be the defendant's costs in the proceedings.