Burchell & Anor v Hill & Ors

Facts

The plaintiff issued a subpoena to the National Australia Bank Limited, a non party. The NAB objected to producing the documents specified on the (not unusual grounds) that:

1. it was fishing for documents for the purpose of determining whether there was a cause of action against NAB;
2. it was oppressive and too wide;
3. the documents sought were irrelevant.

Analysis

The issue Muhktar AsJ considered was the scope and operation of the phrase “..to produce any document for evidence..” found in Order 42A.01.  He posited the question, at [3], as:

The question is: does the expression ”for evidence” mean that the only document capable of being sought under this rule is a document – a tenderable document – that the subpoenaing party wants to tender into evidence at trial? The Bank says the rule is to be so circumscribed and relies on the decision of Gillard J in Kennedy Taylor (Vic) Pty Ltd v Grocon.

The plaintiff/respondent submitted that the test was whether there is a legitimate forensic purpose in having the documents produced.  Reference to for evidence only requires that the documents may be needed for trial.  After a detailed review of authorities Muhktar AsJ set out the following applicable broad propositions:

1. at [15], “..the expression “for evidence” might be conjectural but the idea … is to convey an intention that an interlocutory subpoena under rule 42A should not be used as a substitute for non-party discovery. It is looking to obtain documents after the completion of the ordinary pleading and discovery process for use, or potential use, at trial. Whether the subpoena does, or does not, will depend on the terms of the subpoena…it will come to an examination, some times an impression by the Judge, of the breath of amplitude of the document description and nature, and whether the recipient is required to make a judgment whether a particular document satisfies the description
2. at [16], “..for evidence” means no more than the document produced may be potentially required for evidence, either in-chief or by cross-examination.”
3. at [17], “..for evidence” means no more than the document produced may be potentially required for evidence, either in-chief or by cross-examination. “
4. at [18], having regard to court’s practice prior to orders 42 and 42A “..the test was whether there was a legitimate forensic purpose in seeking documents before trial, and if it would be in the interests of justice to compel production. ..the essential test was whether the documents were identified with sufficient particularity.“
5. at [19], “..much might depend on the timing. At an early stage, a court might be more inclined to direct a party to rule 32.07 because at that stage attention is usually focussed on case formulation or pre-trial process. However, closer to trial, a court might be more supportive of the subpoena as long as it was not too wide.”
6. at [20], in determining whether the document can permissibly be subpoened “A useful test and one which I shall apply here is to ask whether the subpoena would have been objectionable if it was made returnable at trial.“

The NAB contended the subpoena was oppressive because there was evidence of illicit purposes.  Shortly before issuing the subpoena the plaintiff wrote to NAB and intimated that it was liable to compensate the plaintiff because a contravention of section 260A of the Corporations Act.  The court took into account the plaintiff’s disavowal of any ulterior purpose and noted that the subpoena was issued in the shadow of a looming trial.  The documents were relevant for that trial.  If they could be used for another purpose there would be a real question of the Court providing leave.  The Court was interested in the  issue at hand.  Compare this approach to that taken by Gillard J in Kennedy Taylor.

Issue

The propositions the court set out while very broad and general are a very useful point of reference when framing a subpoena under Order 42A and making application to set aside such a subpoena.  Some caution is warranted in relying on this decision as determinative of the scope of Order 42A subpoenas.  Gillard J in Kennedy Taylor (Vic) Pty Ltd v Grocon adopted a far more stringent test on the question of “evidence” as did Kaye J in Newnham v Davis. Muhktar AsJ essentially distinguished those decisions on the facts.

Re Bill Express Limited (in liq)

Facts

The applicant’s complaint at first instance, see [3],  was that the wording “all books and records relating to the affairs of [the] Bill Express [Group]” was oppressive and that the use of the expression “relating to the affairs” was uncertain and too wide.  On appeal the applicants in addition to maintaining the objection submitted the summons were beyond power because, see [6],:

1. summons issued under 596B of the Corporations Act must be “specified” whereas the summons described the documents as “relating to” the examinable affairs of the corporation;
2. the documents sought must be confined to examinable affairs of the corporation;
3. it is a fishing expedition;
4. it is too wide

Analysis

Davies J embarked upon a detailed analysis of sections 596D and 596B.  The court’s power under section 596B is enlivened when an eligible applicant provides sufficient facts which which satisfy it that the person summonsed may be able, rather than will be able,  to give information about the corporation or its examinable affairs.  It is not a high threshold (see [13]).  While the discretion is unfettered it must be exercised judicially (see analysis at [14]).

Davies J found that “relates”, a word capable of wide meaning, must be construed in the context within which it appears ([22]).  She found:

In this context, the phrase operates to indicate the requirement that there must be a connection between the documents sought to be produced and the examinable affairs of the company. It follows that a document that is unconnected with the company the subject of the examination or of its examinable affairs would not be a document required to be produced

Regarding point 2 of the applicants submissions her Honour summarised the guiding principles, after a detailed examination of the authorities,  as “the cases confirm that the scope and exercise of the power to order the production of documents for the purposes of an examination depends on the scope and exercise of the power to order an examination.” (see [26]). Where there is no limitation on the subject matter of the examination, other than it is about a corporation’s examinable affairs, the examinee must produce all books and records relating to the affairs of the  corporation.

Davies, extracting Re New Tel (In Liq) listed legitimate purpose of examination under 597 of the Corporations Act (see [27]):

(a) an examination is designed to serve the purpose of enabling an eligible applicant to gather information to assist the eligible applicant in the administration of the corporation;

(b) an examination assists the corporation’s administrators to identify the corporation’s assets, both tangible and intangible and also allows the corporation’s liabilities to be identified;

(c) the purpose is to protect the interest of the corporation’s creditors;

(d) the examination serves the purpose of enabling evidence and information to be obtained to support the bringing of proceedings against examinable officers and other persons in connection with the examinable affairs of the corporation;

(e) an examination assists in the regulation of corporations by providing a public forum for the examination of examinable officers of corporations.

Her Honour considered the meaning of “specified books” ([29] – [34]). She found that section 596D(2) requires no other construction than the ordinary meaning of “specified” (see [33]).   To that end she stated:

Where an order is made under s 596B, the summons must identify the books and records required to be produced with sufficient clarity to enable the recipient to know what the documents come within the terms of the summons to be able to form a reasonable view about what must be produced in order to comply with the summons. The inquiry, in each particular case, is the degree of specificity required to provide the clarity and precision that the section mandates.

Her Honour found the summonses were not too wide or oppressive noting that

1. the applicants, although not officers of the company had significant involvement in its affairs.  The onorous nature of the request is no reason not to comply provided it complies with the statutory requirements of section 596D.;
2. the appropriate test in determining whether the summons is oppressive is “.whether the summons makes “reasonably clear” what documents must be produced.” (see [37])

Issue

Courts take a broad view regarding liquidators summonses.  There is limited utility in taking issue with broad terminology typically used in framing such summonses.

]]> http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/2010/04/08/production-of-documents-summons-and-subpoena-re-bill-express-limited-in-liq-2010-vsc-101-31-march-2010-burchell-anor-v-hill-ors-2010-vsc-96-31-march-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/2009/05/29/statutory-demands-section-459s-corporations-act-interesting-twists-and-turnsgrant-thornton-services-nsw-pty-limited-v-st-george-wholesale-distributors-pty-ltd-no-2-2009-fca-557-27-may-20/ http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/2009/05/29/statutory-demands-section-459s-corporations-act-interesting-twists-and-turnsgrant-thornton-services-nsw-pty-limited-v-st-george-wholesale-distributors-pty-ltd-no-2-2009-fca-557-27-may-20/#comments Thu, 28 May 2009 20:46:42 +0000 Peter Clarke http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/?p=403 Yesterday’s Federal Court decision in Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Limited v St. George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (No 2) throws up both a curious factual situation but the relatively little considered section 459(S) of the Corporations Act 2001. It is also a salient and sombre lesson in how to run an application.

Facts

Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Ltd (“Grant Thornton”) provides accounting services.  It provided those services to the “Paul’s Warehouse” group of companies.  St George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (St George) is part of that group but unlike other companies in that group it had net asssets.  Grant Thornton issued invoices on St George totalling $91,305.50. When the invoices were not paid Grant Thornton issued a statutory demand.  St George neither paid the sum nor applied to set aside the demand.  When St George found itself the subject of winding up application it roused itself to apply for leave to oppose the application on the basis that there was a genuine dispute. Leave is required because, per section 459 (S), St George could have earlier applied to set aside the statutory demand because there was a genuine dispute.

The issues

Section 459(s) (pars [7]  – [10])

To get leave section 459(s) requires that a court is satisfied that the ground is material to proving that a company is solvent.