Hann v Hann [2025] NSWSC 80

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hann v Hann [2025] NSWSC 80 Hearing dates: 14 February 2025 Date of orders: 14 February 2025 Decision date: 14 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List Before: Kunc J Decision: Subpoenas set aside and orders made for destruction of accessed documents Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – subpoena to produce documents or things – abuse of process – precipitous issue of subpoenas – subpoenas issued before pleadings filed and not justified by issues in interlocutory dispute Cases Cited: Neil Street Co Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2024] NSWSC 1382 Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 1 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Steven Frederick Hann (Plaintiff) Paul Robert Hann (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Crossland (Plaintiff) E Ball (Defendant)

Solicitors: Watson Law (Plaintiff) Collins Clare Solicitors (Defendant) File Number(s): 2023/263690 Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Summary 1. By further amended notice of motion dated 5 August 2023, the defendants seek to set aside two subpoenas issued at the request of the plaintiff to IMB Bank and Commonwealth Bank of Australia. 2. The parties are all the children of the late John Hann. The plaintiff (to whom I shall refer, without disrespect, as Steven) and the first defendant (to whom I shall refer, again without disrespect, as Paul) are the main protagonists, and all three defendants are executors of the estate of the late John Hann. 3. The underlying dispute is that Steven alleges that the defendants have, without his consent, sold or dealt with cattle said to have been jointly owned by Steven and Paul. The subpoenas were issued on 19 October 2023, while the parties were locked in intense interlocutory disputes. Under the Court's rules, leave was not required for the issue of the subpoenas. The subpoenas sought copies of all bank statements in the name of Paul or John (in either their own name or with any other person) from 12 August 2021 to the date of the subpoenas. The essential question is whether, having regard to the state of the litigation at that time, there was a proper forensic purpose for the issue of the subpoenas. 4. For the reasons which follow, the Court has determined that the issue of the subpoenas lacked a proper forensic purpose and they will be set aside. The Court acknowledges the assistance it has received from the extensive written and oral submissions of Mr E Ball of Counsel for the defendant applicants and Mr A Crossland of Counsel for the plaintiff respondent.