Australian Prime Realty t/as Sydney Prime Realty v. Galbid P/L t/as Sydney First Realty [1994] FCA 853

JUDGMENT No. 2S3 wt, NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY No NG 730 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION

AUSTRALIAN PRIME REALTY T/as SYDNEY PRIME REALTY

Applicant AND:

GALBID PTY LIMITED T/as SYDNEY FIRST REALTY

Respondent RECEIVED

CORAM: SACKVILLE J. Seats SYONET romeo DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 1994 AUSTRALIA oF

PRINCIPAL

REGISTRY HIS HONOUR: In this matter an issue has arisen concerning

answers that have been made by the applicant, and by individuals with some association with the applicant, in response to a notice

to produce and subpoenas that have been issued.

The notice to produce and subpoenas are in substantially identical form. The applicant has respon." 4e notice tic produce and the individuals mentioned in the subpoenas have responded to those subpoenas by producing certain documents to the court. There is no dispute as to a number of paragraphs

within the notice to produce and the subpoenas. Those paragraphs

are 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12.

Issues have arisen, however, with respect to paragraphs 3, 4, 7

and 11. The documents sought by those paragraphs are as follows:

e All banker's receipt books and deposit books in respect of any bank accounts held by Sydney Prime Realty between 1 September 1993 and 31 March 1994.

e The original or copy of the lease of the premises between Sydney Prime Realty and the registered proprietor of the premises from which Sydney Prime Realty conducted its

business between 1 September 1993 and 31 March 1994.

e Originals and copies of all accounts paid or payable by

Sydney Prime Realty between 1 September 1993 and 31 March 1994.

e Copies of all invoices issued by Sydney Prime Realty

between 1 September 1993 and 31 March 1994.

Mr Gray, who appears for the applicant, objects to production of documents pursuant to those paragraphs on the ground that the documents referred to bear no apparent relevance to the issues in the proceedings. Miss Gleeson, on t'~ other hand, submits that the documents sought are relevant and ought to be produced. I raised the question as to whether as a matter of form, the appropriate application by Mr Gray might not be to set aside the