QUEENSLAND CIVIL PRACTICE - BH MCPHERSON, PP MCQUADE AND B CAIRNS GENERAL EDITOR: JUSTICE D THOMAS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UPDATE 118-119 APRIL 2021
QUEENSLAND CIVIL PRACTICE
BH McPherson, PP McQuade and B Cairns
General Editor: Justice D Thomas
Currently updated by
Bridget Cullen, Bernard Cairns, Justin Carter, John Forbes,
Chris Tam,
Daniel Morgan, Matthew Williams and Joelle Lenz
Material Code 41907129
Print Post Approved PP255003/04518
¤ Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 2021
Looseleaf Support Service
You can now access the current list of page numbers at
http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/support/product-support.aspx?id=/mediaTree/58599. If you have any
questions or comments, or to order missing pages, please contact Customer Care LTA ANZ on 1300 304 195
Fax: 1300 304 196 Email: Care.ANZ@thomsonreuters.comUpdated commentary has been provided: Updated The pros and cons bearing on the exercise of the discretion was carefully considered. See Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wilson (2020) 146 ACSR 149; [2020] FCA 873, at [UCPR.392.60]. The Supreme Court of Queensland agreed to register a judgment of a County Court in England, which had registered a UK Employment Tribunal award. See Valkova v Player [2018] QSC 104, at [UCPR.395A.10]. The application must be made by a duly qualified legal practitioner if the entity is seeking to issue a subpoena in a corporation. See Vintage Marine Art Pty Ltd v Henderson [2021] NSWSC 48, at [UCPR.414.10]. It was not sufficient that the material sought related to a matter raised by affidavit was fatal. See Re Wetherill Park Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 982, at [UCPR.416.10]. If the contention is that a search warrant lacks any proper basis, an application alleging “no forensic purpose” is a misconceived procedure. See R v Young [2020] ACTSC 356, at [UCPR.416.10]. A subpoena that seeks details of thousands of pages of telephone records of dubious relevance, is manifestly oppressive. See Craig v Johnson (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 81 at [UCPR.416.10]. If the objection is, or is likely to be successful, costs of seeking advice on an objection to the subpoena may also be recoverable. See Levey v Bird [2020] VSC 615, at [UCPR.417.10] and [UCPR.429O.10]. Chapter 11 Updated Traditional methods compared An application was made for video link evidence when an important witness refused to travel to Australia to face cross-examination: Antov v Bokan (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 250 at [42], at [UCPR.392.30]. Queensland Civil Practice 2
Failure to give notice King v Nolan was decided well before the current emphasis on case management of courts to ensure the expeditious disposition of cases: Pryce v Dunlap [2016] ACTSC 338 at [37], at [UCPR.393.10]. Section 36 of the Evidence Act 1977 The NSW court agreed to enforce a judgment of the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of the Shandong Province of China: Bao v Qu (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 588, at [UCPR.395A.10]. Predicates current action It is not permissible to issue a subpoena for documents that may disclose matters relevant to an interlocutory proceeding: Sandy v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2019] WASC 322, at [UCPR.396.30]. General When a subpoena is directed to a company it is not necessary for that entity to give anyone express authority to answer the subpoena: R v Ronen (2004) 62 NSWLR 707; [2004] NSWCCA 67, at [UCPR.416.10]. The recipient of a subpoena is not required to give access to documents: Carter v The Managing Partner, Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121; 69 ALJR 572; [1995] HCA 33 at [UCPR.416.10]. Reference The tender is rejected where an expert report is unsigned by the authors or adopted by them in evidence: Jones v Murrumbidgee Irrigation Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1228, at [UCPR.428.5]. “Scandalous” References in a defamation case to nude photographs of the plaintiff were deemed material and not liable to be struck out: James v Faddoul [2008] NSWSC 176, at [UCPR.440.10]. New and updated commentary have been provided by Bridget Cullen: Chapter 7 Updated In the possession or under the control A “Sabre order” – requiring the defendant to request documents from its parent Queensland Civil Practice 3
company was being considered: BSO Network Inc v EMClarity Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 186,
at [UCPR.211.20].
Non-disclosure and court orders
Documents such as bank statements can be disclosed following an application and
payment of a fee: Schebella v Schebella [2020] QDC 74, at [UCPR.223.10].
Court ordered relief
Honour Jackson J balance trade rivals’ needs and interests in relation to disclosure:
Integrated Medical Technology Pty Ltd v Gilbert (No 2) [2015] QSC 124, at
[UCPR.224.10].
Others affected by notice
His Honour Crow J addresses r 244(1), in proceedings where the applicants served a
notice requiring non-party disclosure: Murphy Operator v Gladstone Ports Corporation
(No 5) [2020] QSC 36, at [UCPR.244.20].
New
Disclosure by production
[rule 217]: When disclosure is by production the only list that should be produced is a
list of the documents for which the party claims privilege: Shannon v Park Equipment
Pty Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 299; [2006] QSC 284 at [UCPR.217.10].
Disclosure relating to damages
[rule 221]: Sending tax returns and notices of assessment, relevant to damages, was
not required by the rules: Pickering v McArthur (No 2) [2010] QDC 90,
at [UCPR.221.10].
Practice Notes
x Supreme Court Practice Direction No 4 of 2020 “Case Flow Management – Civil
Jurisdiction”;
x Supreme Court Practice Direction No 11 of 2012 “Supervised case list”;
x District Court Practice Direction No 3 of 2020 “Use of technology for the efficient
management of documents in litigation”.
Class Action
Queensland Civil Practice 4Settlement and class closure If an “in-principle” settlement was reached before the trial of the common issues, group members were bound by the terms of settlement approved by the court and barred from making any claim against the defendant Haselhurst v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd (t/as Toyota Australia) [2020] NSWCA 66, at [CPA103R.50]. Class closure is permissible if the rights of the excluded members are unaffected and they retain their right to bring a separate proceeding Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2020] NSWCA 104, at [CPA103R.50]. Queensland Civil Practice 5
Queensland Civil Practice 6
You can also read
