Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review under s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (No 3) [2020] FCA 634 File number: QUD 699 of 2019
Judge: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 20 May 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoena – non-party resisting production of documents in certain categories – computer programs – means or methodology of sampling under s 106K Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) – whether documents in subpoena identified with reasonable particularity – reading subpoena sensibly and with reference to circumstances known – whether specific articulation of types of documents sought required – whether documents adjectivally relevant to issues in substantive proceeding – whether fishing exercise – where precise description of documents only within knowledge of subpoena recipient – whether documents sought in correspondence between applicant and subpoena recipient broader than subpoena – whether subpoena oppressive –effect of COVID-19 pandemic on reasonable time for response by subpoena recipient
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Sch Pt 1, Sch Pt 2 cl 8 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 24.15, Sch 1 Health Insurance (Professional Services Review – Sampling Methodology) Determination 2017 Pt 2 s 8(1) Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ss 83, 88A, 106K
Cases cited: Adelaide Steamship Company v Spalvins (1997) 24 ACSR 536 Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136; [2001] FCA 60 Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 28 Hamilton v Oades (1986) 166 CLR 486; [1989] HCA 21 Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review under s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (No 2) [2019] FCA 2022 Lucas Industries Ltd v Hewitt (1978) 18 ALR 555 McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 785; [2005] FCA 1233 Oceanic Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197; [1988] HCA 32 R v Robertson; Ex parte McAuley (1983) 71 FLR 429 American Express Warehousing Ltd v Doe [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep 222 Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1977] 3 WLR 430 Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] 2 WLR 81 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 5) (2005) 216 ALR 147; [2005] FCA 510 Smorgon v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1976) 134 CLR 475; [1976] HCA 53 Spencer Motors Pty Ltd v LNC Industries Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 921 Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 364 The Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564 Walker v Newmont Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 298 Wong v Sklavos (2014) 319 ALR 378; [2014] FCAFC 120
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