Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 4) [2017] FCA 1571 File number: NSD 850 of 2014
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 4 December 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by third party publishers to set aside subpoenas to produce documents – where subpoenas sought production of all correspondence "relating to" 21 newspaper articles between second applicant and publishers – where first respondent pleaded defence of qualified privilege to claim in defamation based on reply to an attack contained in the 21 articles – where first respondent alleged, but had not pleaded, that second applicant responsible for attack – whether subpoenas had legitimate forensic purpose – whether documents sought in subpoena had apparent relevance to issues in proceeding – whether terms of subpoena amounted to fishing to support first respondent's speculative allegation that second applicant was responsible for attack contained in articles
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law s 18
Cases cited: Abou-Lokmeh v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2016] NSWCA 228 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Shell Co of Australia Limited (1999) 161 ALR 686 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (2012) 247 CLR 31 Penton v Caldwell (1945) 70 CLR 219 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170
Date of hearing: 4 December 2017
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