University of New England v Samantha Aber & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1353

University of New England v Samantha Aber & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1353

The documents sought in paragraphs 3 to 10 and 12 of the Notice to Produce did not have sufficient relevance to the issue on which the University relied for appointment of a receiver, namely the alleged impending vacuum in UNESA's governance. There was no triable issue raised as to dissipation of assets and the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application Concerning a Notice to Produce in Proceedings Seeking Appointment of a Receiver and Manager / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside or Limit Production Under a Notice to Produce
Outcome
The defendants' motion was allowed to the extent that production of specified categories of documents was not required, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['notices to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'relevance' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'receivers and Managers' 'student Association Governance']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['notices to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'relevance' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'receivers and Managers' 'student Association Governance']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil Procedure Application Concerning a Notice to Produce in Proceedings Seeking Appointment of a Receiver and Manager / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside or Limit Production Under a Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should be required to produce documents sought by the plaintiff's Notice to Produce dated 1 December 2005." "Whether documents concerning UNESA's assets, financial position, employees, alleged misconduct and proposed transition had sufficient relevance to the plaintiff's application for appointment of a receiver." 'Whether the Notice to Produce was being used to fish for a case not presently alleged.']

Ratio Decidendi

The documents sought in paragraphs 3 to 10 and 12 of the Notice to Produce did not have sufficient relevance to the issue on which the University relied for appointment of a receiver, namely the alleged impending vacuum in UNESA's governance. There was no triable issue raised as to dissipation of assets and the documents concerning financial position, employment matters, misconduct and restructuring would not add to the relevant body of evidence. To the extent the University sought to explore prudential management of UNESA's assets, the notice was fishing for information to see whether it could make a case not presently alleged.

Court Disposition

The defendants' motion was allowed to the extent that production of specified categories of documents was not required, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Order that pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 21.11, the defendant need not produce the documents referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Notice to Produce issued by the plaintiff and addressed to the defendant, dated 1 December 2005.' "Order that the plaintiff pay the...