Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2007] FCA 1865
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoena – application to set aside – whether subpoenas were relevant to issues or fishing – whether subpoenas oppressive – whether s 824 of the Workplace Relations Act applies to applicants who applied to set aside subpoenas – application allowed with costs. Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 824 MICHAEL STANDEN v JUSTIN FEEHAN SAD 74 OF 2006
LANDER J
26 NOVEMBER 2007
ADELAIDE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 74 OF 2006
BETWEEN: MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant
AND: JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent
JUDGE: LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER: 26 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The subpoena directed to Mr Robert Stewart of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside. 2. The subpoena directed to Mr Chris Schutz, General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes issued by the respondent on 12 November 2007 be set aside. 3. The respondent to the proceeding pay the costs of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and SJS Management Services Pty Ltd t/a Scott Salisbury Homes, of and incidental to the motion to set aside the subpoenas. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 74 OF 2006
BETWEEN: MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant
AND: JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent
JUDGE: LANDER J
DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by an officer of the Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc and the General Manager of SJS Management Services Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Salisbury Homes (the applicants on the motion), to set aside the subpoena issued to each of those entities by the respondent to these proceedings. 2 The substantive proceeding was commenced by the applicant against the respondent on 4 May 2006. In the statement of claim, the applicant claims that the respondent, whilst on a site at Halifax Street in Adelaide, intentionally hindered and obstructed a number of persons in the carrying out of their businesses. 3 The particulars giving rise to the conduct which is said to give rise to intentionally hindering and obstructing those people, assert that the respondent arrived at the site on 5 May 2004, parked his vehicle on the site and then refused to move his vehicle so as not to allow work to be undertaken by builders and subcontractors on the site. There is no allegation that the respondent was not entitled to be on the site. Indeed, it seems to be accepted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the statement of claim that the respondent was entitled to be on the site, pursuant to ss 285B and 285C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act).
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate