Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805 Hearing dates: 7 June 2013 Decision date: 19 June 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Subpoena set aside in part. Catchwords: SUBPOENA - REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS - class action arising out of engine failure in flight - subpoena to airline for passenger manifest - whether subpoena premature - need to facilitate cheap and quick disposal of proceedings. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Cases Cited: - Bright v Femcare Ltd [2000] FCA 1344 - Trade Practices Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) (1995) 58 FCR 426 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Sandy Lam (Plaintiff) Rolls Royce PLC Reg No 4706930 (Defendant) Qantas Airways Limited (Applicant) Representation: Counsel: J.E. Rowe (Plaintiff) N.E. Chen (Defendant) M.A. Izzo (Applicant) Solicitors: LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff) Holman Fenwick Willan (Defendant) Minter Ellison (Applicant) File Number(s): 2013/037342

Judgment 1On 7 June 2013 I heard an application by Qantas Airways Limited ("Qantas") to set aside a subpoena issued at the request of the plaintiff. The subpoena seeks production, inter alia, of a passenger manifest for flight QF 32 which departed from Changi Airport in Singapore bound for Sydney on 4 November 2010 (the "flight"). This is a representative action and the subpoena had been issued at an early stage of the proceedings. Qantas' application was supported by the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC ("Rolls Royce"). 2For the reasons set out below, I decline to set aside that part of the subpoena that requires production of the passenger manifest, although one part of the subpoena will be varied and other parts will be set aside.