NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: King v Benecke [2012] NSWSC 1012 Hearing dates: 29 August 2012 Decision date: 31 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: 1. The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 23 August 2012 is dismissed. 2. The costs of the motion should be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings. Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - subpoena - application to set aside - whether documents sought potentially likely to assist materially on an identified issue - whether legitimate forensic purpose identified
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - notice to produce - application to set aside - whether documents sought potentially likely to assist materially on an identified issue - whether legitimate forensic purpose identified Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 432 ICAP Pty Ltd v Moebes [2009] NSWSC 306 National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Waind and Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 969 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: George Berkeley King (Plaintiff) Ian John Benecke (Defendant) Representation: D L Williams SC with T J Breakspear and M F Newton (Plaintiff) I R Pike SC with J J Hutton (Defendant) Thompson Eslick Solicitors (Plaintiff) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Defendant) File Number(s): 2009/297857
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate