FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Optics Online Pty Limited v Sunland Group Limited [2007] FCA 711 OPTICS ONLINE PTY LIMITED v SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED, PRD REALTY PTY LIMITED, MARKUS BUSKEY, CRESTGATE PTY LIMITED, DEL LA PARKER AND GALACOAST PTY LIMITED NSD 1622 OF 2006 ALLSOP J 11 MAY 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1622 OF 2006 BETWEEN: OPTICS ONLINE PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED First Respondent PRD REALTY PTY LIMITED Second Respondent MARKUS BUSKEY Third Respondent CRESTGATE PTY LIMITED Fourth Respondent DEL LA PARKER Fifth Respondent GALACOAST PTY LIMITED Sixth Respondent JUDGE: ALLSOP J DATE OF ORDER: 11 MAY 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Substituted Service 1. Pursuant to Order 7 Rule 9 of the Federal Court Rules personal service of the subpoena on Peter Giuffre be dispensed with. 2. Pursuant to Order 7 Rule 9 of the Federal Court Rules the fourth and fifth respondents be given leave to effect service of the subpoena, filed in the Federal Court on 22 February 2007, on Peter Giuffre by substituting service in accordance with paragraph 3 of these orders. 3. A copy of the subpoena together with a sealed copy of this order be served on Peter Giuffre (in a sealed envelope) by pre-paid registered post addressed to the following address: (a) "The Ocean Isles" 3/3507 Main Beach Parade, Main Beach Qld 4217. 4. The subpoena be deemed to be served upon Peter Giuffre upon the expiration of 7 days from the date of the events referred to in paragraph 2 of these orders. 5. Peter Giuffre is to attend to producing the subpoena and documents or things to the Registrar, Federal Court of Australia, Law Courts Building, Queen's Square, Sydney within 14 days of service. 6. Service in accordance with this order shall be deemed good and sufficient service of the subpoena on Peter Giuffre. Access to documents produced on subpoena 7. The applicant in the first instance is to have first access for seven days from the date of this order to the documents produced on subpoena by: (a) Lynch & Co Solicitors; (b) McCullough Robertson Lawyers; and (c) Robinson & Robinson Lawyers. 8. Subject to paragraph 7 above and to any claim for privilege made by the applicant, all parties are thereafter to have general access to the documents produced on subpoena by: (a) Lynch & Co Solicitors; (b) McCullough Robertson Lawyers; (c) Robinson & Robinson Lawyers; (d) Harcourts Mermaid Beach. Notice of Motion 9. The first respondent file and serve any notice of motion and serve any affidavit or proposed tender bundle in support of the application by 18 May 2007. 10. The applicant serve any affidavits or proposed tender bundle in response by 25 May 2007. 11. The first respondent's notice of motion be listed for hearing on 18 June 2007 at 10.15. 12. Relevant parties exchange outline of submissions on or before 13 June 2007. 13. The proceedings are stood over for directions to 18 June 2007 at 10.15 am, subject to any party not interested in participating in the motion is excused from attendance until otherwise notified. 14. Directions hearing on 5 July 2007 is vacated. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1622 OF 2006 BETWEEN: OPTICS ONLINE PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: SUNLAND GROUP LIMITED First Respondent PRD REALTY PTY LIMITED Second Respondent MARKUS BUSKEY Third Respondent CRESTGATE PTY LIMITED Fourth Respondent DEL LA PARKER Fifth Respondent GALACOAST PTY LIMITED Sixth Respondent JUDGE: ALLSOP J DATE: 11 MAY 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter Carter Newell Lawyers on behalf of the fourth and fifth respondents sought to serve a subpoena on a Mr Peter Giuffre who at some time in the past acted for the applicant as a solicitor. Mr Giuffre appears to live at a unit complex in Main Beach in Queensland. An attempt to serve a subpoena which was issued with leave was made upon him on 13 March 2007. Mr Giuffre would not come down from his unit, which is a security unit, on that day. He made an offer to communicate by telephone which has not been an offer able to be successfully availed of. 2 I grant leave to the fourth and fifth respondents to rely upon a copy of an affidavit by Peter William George, licensed process server, sworn on 12 April 2007 which is annexed to correspondence by facsimile to my chambers dated 3 May 2007. 3 I required the matter to come to court today. The parties have also raised another issue in relation to the conduct of the proceeding. For those reasons they have incorporated into short minutes of order dealing with substituted service orders dealing with access to documents produced on subpoena and also in relation to a notice of motion which the first respondent wishes to bring based on what it says is the inadequacy of the pleading, the provision of particulars and other information provided by the applicant. 4 For these reasons, I make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled by me dated today and also amended by me and placed with the papers. In those orders, the directions hearing of 5 July 2007 is vacated and the proceeding is stood over, as is the notice of motion that is to be served, to 18 June 2007 at 10.15 am. I make one further addition: the first respondent file and serve any notice of motion and serve any affidavit or proposed tender bundle. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop. Associate: Dated: 14 May 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Giles Solicitor for the Applicant Levitt Robinson Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr M Cohen Solicitor for the First Respondent: Gadens Lawyers Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondent: Phillips Fox Solicitor for the Fourth and Fifth Respondent: Carter Newell Solicitor for the Sixth Respondent: McCabe Terrill Lawyers Date of Hearing: 11 May 2007 Date of Judgment: 11 May 2007