Young v Vidler [2023] NSWLC 7

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Vidler [2023] NSWLC 7 Hearing dates: 13 September 2023 Decision date: 19 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Brender LCM Decision: Orders for examination made Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE CIVIL PROCEDURE — Subpoenas — To give evidence Cases Cited: Hexiva Pty Ltd v Lederer [2006] NSWSC 561 Moustache Pty Ltd v Takchi [2015] NSWSC 2077 Pyoja Pty Ltd v 284 Bronte Road Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 831 Quach v Vu [2009] NSWSC 131 Stocovaz v Fung [2007] NSWCA 199 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Annette Young Virginia Vidler Representation: Defendant/Applicant on Motion: Mr J Gruzman Parties affected by Motion: Mr Parrish File Number(s): 2023/00013315

JUDGMENT 1. This motion relates to a motor vehicle accident claim in the General Division claiming repairs of $23,323 and hire car costs of $6,376. There are defences including asserting that the amounts claimed are not fair and reasonable. 2. The defendant has issued subpoenas to the Proper Officer of DCD Smash Repairs Pty Ltd ('DCD') and the Proper Officer of Byzantine Investments Pty Ltd t/a Crashclaim ('Crashclaim') seeking documents in multiple categories relating to matters such as the ordering of any parts for the repair of the relevant vehicle and as to the hiring of the motor vehicle claimed in the proceedings. Nobody has moved to set aside the subpoenas. There is no dispute at present about who is the 'Proper Officer' in each case. 3. The defendant is dissatisfied with production. She has sought an explanation as to why more documents haven't been produced and has not received a satisfactory reply. Accordingly, she has moved on a motion that the Proper Officers attend court to be examined in respect of the subpoenas. Two other such motions in Small Claims matters were also argued based on similar evidence. The plaintiffs did not participate in the motions. The motions were defended by counsel for the proper officers.