Sweeney v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] NSWSC 103

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Sweeney v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] NSWSC 103

HEARING DATE(S) : 28/02/2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 2 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Hoeben J at 1

DECISION : See paragraph 34

CATCHWORDS : Subpoena to give evidence - application to set it aside - proposed evidence irrelevant - impermissible purpose for issue of subpoena - proposed evidence inadmissible under s208L Legal Profession Act, 1987.

Corporations Act 2001 LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 1987 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Botany Bay Instrumentation and Control v Stewart (1984) 3 NSWLR 98 Hatton v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (2000) 158 FLR 31 CASES CITED : Larsen v Vile [1999] NSWCA 397 Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Trade Practices Commissioner v Arnotts Limited (1989) 21 FCR 306

PARTIES : Charles Augustine Sweeney - Plaintiff Australian Securities and Investments Commission - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10792/2005

COUNSEL : Mr L Kelly - Plaintiff Mr D Stack - Defendant

SOLICITORS : Noel F Bracks & Company - Plaintiff Gillian Tang - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Thursday, 2 March 2006

10792/2005 – Charles Augustine SWEENEY v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Nature of proceedings The application before me is by the defendant to set aside two subpoenas directed to Peter Riordan and Jan Redfern to attend for the purpose of giving evidence in these proceedings (the principal proceedings), which have been fixed for hearing on 7 March 2006. Ms Redfern and Mr Riordan are senior lawyers in the employ of the defendant. The subpoenas are dated 13 February 2006.