Davron v Teys [2009] NSWSC 1004

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Davron v Teys [2009] NSWSC 1004

HEARING DATE(S) : 29/07/09

JUDGMENT DATE : 24 September 2009

JURISDICTION : Equity Divison

JUDGMENT OF : Macready AsJ at 1

DECISION : Paragraph 62

CATCHWORDS : Practice and Procedure. Review of Registrar's decision. Matters not raised before Registrar. Whether any relevant error on the part of the Registrar. Application for review dismissed.

PARTIES : Davron Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Teys Property Funds Limited & Ors

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6009/2007

COUNSEL : Mr D Lloyd for plaintiff Mr EC Muston for Ace Insurance

SOLICITORS : HWL Ebsworth for plaintiff Gilchrist Connell for Ace Insurance

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Thursday 24 September 2009

6009/2007 Davron Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Teys Property Funds Limited & Ors. JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: This is the hearing of a notice of motion filed on 28 October 2008 by Ace Insurance Limited in which they seek a review of a decision of Senior Deputy Registrar Flaskas given on 2 October 2008, pursuant to the provisions of Part 49 Rule 19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR). 2 The Registrar dismissed an application to set aside a subpoena, dated 29 May 2008, to produce documents issued by the first defendant to the applicant. The Registrar ordered the subpoena not be set aside and the applicant pay the first defendant's costs.

3 The applicant seeks an order that the subpoena to produce documents be set aside and that the first defendant, Teys Property Funds Ltd pay the costs of this and the earlier proceeding before the Registrar. Background facts. 4 Before the Registrar, the applicant Ace Insurance Limited, who is not a party to the proceedings, sought to have the subpoena set aside in accordance with r 33.4 of the UCPR. The applicant asserted no legitimate forensic purpose regarding the subpoena had been demonstrated. 5 Registrar Flaskas decided that the motion should fail for the reasons he expressed, namely: "I am of the view that the motion being considered in court should fail for the following reasons today. I am satisfied that the first defendant has successfully argued its case. I am also satisfied that the document sought to relate to the very valuation the subject of the principal proceedings in this matter. "