Health Administration Corporation v Toll Global Forwarding Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 285

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Health Administration Corporation v Toll Global Forwarding Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 285 Hearing dates: 13 March 2024 Date of orders: 21 March 2024 Decision date: 21 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Meek J Decision: Direction for parties to confer to agree on time period to qualify request in amended notice to produce. Otherwise notice of motion to set aside notice to produce dismissed. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Notices to produce in civil proceedings — Application to set aside — Proper approach to assessing whether notice to produce should be set aside — Interaction of principles of abuse of process and legitimate forensic purpose CIVIL PROCEDURE — Notices to produce — Consideration of power of the Court to regulate production of documents — Distinction between subpoenas to persons or entities who are not parties to proceedings and notices to produce as between parties to proceedings — In the context of case management as between parties to proceedings, once an issue regarding production of documents comes before the Court, the issue of what may be permissible is not restrained by the parties' contentions but in a sense becomes 'at large' in that it is subject to the Court's power to actively manage cases to achieve the overriding objective — In the context of appropriate case management and the Court's dispensing power, the Court is not bound to binary outcomes of whether the notice to produce in its existing form and content should be set aside or not — Nor is the Court necessarily bound by historical distinctions between whether the notice to produce identifies a particular document or thing or requires an obligation in the nature of discovery — The Court may modify the form and/or content of a notice to produce to require production of documents having apparent relevance consistent with the overriding purposes of case management NOTICES TO PRODUCE — Whether the documents are likely to materially assist the issuing party's case is not the decisive determinant of legitimate forensic purpose — If the documents materially assist the issuing party's case that will generally suffice as demonstration of legitimate forensic purpose — However the converse is not the case, and inability to demonstrate that it is 'on the cards' that the documents sought will materially assist the issuing party's case will not necessarily deprive the notice to produce of a legitimate forensic purpose if 'apparent relevance' is shown NOTICES TO PRODUCE — In general, it will be sufficient, and prima facie evidence of a legitimate forensic purpose, if the documents sought to be produced have an apparent relevance to the issues in the case, including if they are capable of assisting in cross-examination, or go to credit, and notwithstanding that they are, or might be, inadmissible according to the rules of evidence NOTICES TO PRODUCE — Discussion of meaning of requirement that the issuer of the notice 'specify' a document or a thing — Examples of 'specification' PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY — Elements for enlivening the discretion to order preliminary discovery — Consideration of element that the applicant may be entitled to make a claim for relief against the prospective defendant Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Public Works and Procurement Act 1912 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Arnaout v Arnaout [2019] NSWSC 565 Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District [2023] NSWCA 219 Commissioner of Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345; [1997] HCA 33 Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd (2015) 245 FCR 129; [2015] FCA 317 Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 422; (2015) 327 ALR 695 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 97 ALJR 857 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435; [2013] HCA 1 Green v Green (1912) 13 SR (NSW) 126 Harding v Bourke (2000) 48 NSWLR 598; [2000] NSWCA 60 Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2010) 77 NSWLR 506; [2010] NSWCA 69 Hennessy v Wright (No 2) (1888) 24 QBD 445 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 51; [2000] NSWSC 338 Jacups v The Fidelity Fund Management Committee of the Law Society of NSW [2022] NSWSC 313 Johnson v Johnson (No 3) (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48 Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 49 WAR 374; [2016] WASCA 14 Lane v Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1981) 148 CLR 245; [1981] HCA 35 Liu v The Age Company Limited (2016) 92 NSWLR 679; [2016] NSWCA 115 Loulach Development Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1465 Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 Malouf v Malouf (1999) 86 FCR 134; [1999] FCA 284 Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261; [1957] HCA 7 Misan v Markham Real Estate Partners (KSW) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 155 Norris v Kandiah [2007] NSWSC 1296 O'Connor v O'Connor [2018] NSWCA 214 Patonga Beach Holdings Pty Ltd v Lyons [2009] NSWSC 869 Pfizer Island Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 193; (2017) 351 ALR 103 Re Don [2006] NSWSC 1125 Reeves v Reeves [2024] NSWSC 134 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2016] NSWCA 88; (2016) 332 ALR 128 Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd [2004] FCA 1360; (2004) 211 ALR 147 Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 19 The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26 Torrac Nominees Pty Ltd v Karabay; UWS Macarthur Sports and Recreation Association Inc v Karabay (2007) 69 NSWLR 669; [2007] NSWCA 96 Waind v Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 Xinfeng Australia International Investment Pty Ltd v GR Capital Group Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 620 Yes Family Pty Ltd v Sphere Healthcare Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 393 Zong v Lin [2021] NSWCA 209 Texts Cited: Coles, Benjamin, "The confetti of the justice system — Subpoenas, justice and third parties" (2016) 42 Aust Bar Rev 385 Halsbury's Laws of Australia Paterson, Jeannie Marie, Corones' Australian Consumer Law (5th ed, 2023, Thomson Reuters) Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Health Administration Corporation (Plaintiff / Applicant) Toll Global Forwarding Pty Ltd (Defendant / Respondent) Representation: Counsel: H Younan SC with B Lloyd (Plaintiff / Applicant) P Knowles SC (Defendant / Respondent)