Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Pennytel Australia Pty Limited v Engelke, in the matter of Pennytel Australia Pty Limited (Objection to Subpoena) [2024] FCA 1441 File number(s): NSD 533 of 2023
Judgment of: NEEDHAM J
Date of judgment: 13 December 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where objections made to compliance with subpoena pursuant to Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Commonwealth (Cth) – Where objections took the form of a letter to the Registry – Inappropriateness of such an approach - r 24.17(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and practice note "Subpoenas and Notices to Produce Practice Note (GPN-SUBP)" – Appropriate form in which an objection to production pursuant to a subpoena should be made – where rules providing for production of documents or for an application for a subpoena to be set aside not complied with – an Objection Letter without production not an appropriate response
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 24.17(4) Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 280(1B)((b) and (c),
Cases cited: Knight Watch Security Proprietary Limited v Aussie Broadband Limited [2023] FCA 344
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
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