Pang Hock Teo v Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (Australia) Limited and anor [2002] NSWIRComm 237

Pang Hock Teo v Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (Australia) Limited and anor [2002] NSWIRComm 237

The summons for production was set aside because paragraph 1 was open-ended as to scope and timeframe and was oppressive, causing unreasonable expenditure of time and money, and the applicant had not identified particular relevant documents with sufficient particularity. The motion to dismiss the second respondent was dismissed because, despite weaknesses in the applicant's case, there was concern about the second respondent's possible involvement through the deputy managing director and a reasonable belief that the second respondent may have a real connection with the relevant contract or arrangement, which required the party to remain before the Court at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Second Respondent and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Summons for Production
Outcome
Summons for production set aside; second respondent's notice of motion to dismiss dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'summons for Production' 'oppressive Summons' 'motion to Dismiss Proceedings Against a Respondent' 'connection With Contract or Arrangement Under S 106']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Contract' 'summons for Production' 'oppressive Summons' 'motion to Dismiss Proceedings Against a Respondent' 'connection With Contract or Arrangement Under S 106']

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 Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Second Respondent and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Summons for Production

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons for production issued on the first respondent should be set aside as vague, oppressive or lacking a legitimate forensic purpose.' 'Whether the summons for relief against the second respondent should be dismissed on the basis that the employment contract was between the applicant and the first respondent and disclosed no cause of action against the second respondent.' 'Whether the second respondent may have a real connection with the contract or arrangement involving the applicant and the first respondent sufficient to remain before the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for production was set aside because paragraph 1 was open-ended as to scope and timeframe and was oppressive, causing unreasonable expenditure of time and money, and the applicant had not identified particular relevant documents with sufficient particularity. The motion to dismiss the second respondent was dismissed because, despite weaknesses in the applicant's case, there was concern about the second respondent's possible involvement through the deputy managing director and a reasonable belief that the second respondent may have a real connection with the relevant contract or arrangement, which required the party to remain before the Court at this stage.

Court Disposition

Summons for production set aside; second respondent's notice of motion to dismiss dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The summons for production filed by the applicant on 10 July 2002 and issued on the first respondent is set aside.' 'The notice of motion filed by the second respondent in these proceedings on 14 June, 2002 is dismissed.' 'Costs are reserved.']