Rochfort, Peter & Ors v. Trade Practices Commission [1981] FCA 187

Rochfort, Peter & Ors v. Trade Practices Commission [1981] FCA 187

Mr. Rochfort was employed by A.R.T.F., not by N.F.F.A., but was personally designated to conduct N.F.F.A.’s secretarial affairs and needed the N.F.F.A. documents for that role. The documents belonged to N.F.F.A.; A.R.T.F. had no possessory rights or obligations in them. Mr. Rochfort’s custody and possession were therefore not merely the possession of his employer, and the Eccles principle did not excuse him from compliance. In any event, there was no evidence that A.R.T.F. or N.F.F.A. had forbidden production or that compliance would violate a duty owed by him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1981
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Subpoena to Produce Documents / Appeal From an Order of the Chief Judge Requiring the First Appellant to Produce Documents Pursuant to a Subpoena Duces Tecum
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['subpoena Duces Tecum' 'production of Documents' 'possession, Custody and Control of Documents' 'unincorporated Associations' 'employee Obligations']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'trade Practices'] ['subpoena Duces Tecum' 'production of Documents' 'possession, Custody and Control of Documents' 'unincorporated Associations' 'employee Obligations']

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

Practice and Procedure; Subpoena to Produce Documents / Appeal From an Order of the Chief Judge Requiring the First Appellant to Produce Documents Pursuant to a Subpoena Duces Tecum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first appellant had sufficient custody, possession or control of N.F.F.A. documents to be compelled to produce them under a subpoena duces tecum.' 'Whether the first appellant could refuse production on the basis that he was an employee of A.R.T.F. and lacked authority from A.R.T.F. or N.F.F.A.' 'Whether the principle in Eccles & Co. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company applied where the person subpoenaed was not an employee of the owner of the documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Rochfort was employed by A.R.T.F., not by N.F.F.A., but was personally designated to conduct N.F.F.A.’s secretarial affairs and needed the N.F.F.A. documents for that role. The documents belonged to N.F.F.A.; A.R.T.F. had no possessory rights or obligations in them. Mr. Rochfort’s custody and possession were therefore not merely the possession of his employer, and the Eccles principle did not excuse him from compliance. In any event, there was no evidence that A.R.T.F. or N.F.F.A. had forbidden production or that compliance would violate a duty owed by him.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeals be dismissed with costs.']