Event and Time
Event Description
This case involves an examination pursuant to Section 68 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) concerning compliance with a subpoena. Mr. Peter Jess, the examinee, was ordered to attend court for examination related to a subpoena served on PJA Accountants & Business Advisors (PJA).
Application and Claims
The plaintiffs filed a notice of motion on 12 December 2022 seeking an order for the examination of Mr. Jess due to alleged non-compliance with the subpoena. The plaintiffs argued that Mr. Jess had not adequately responded to the subpoena, resulting in the motion for examination.
Judicial Decisions
The judge ruled that Mr. Jess should pay the costs of the plaintiffs’ notice of motion, excluding the costs associated with his attendance at the examination and the examination itself.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiffs' Arguments:
- Mr. Jess had purportedly complied with the subpoena on multiple occasions, yet the plaintiffs contended that the responses were incomplete and not in accordance with the subpoena requirements. - Pleaded that compliance attempts were insufficient and that it was necessary to examine Mr. Jess to procure the sought documents engaging their rights to discovery.
- Mr. Jess' Arguments:
- Argued that he had complied with the subpoena by reviewing records and producing documents he believed were responsive. - Suggested that any errors were inadvertent and sought for the plaintiffs to pay the costs related to the motion instead.
- Outcome of Examination:
- At the examination, Mr. Jess provided explanations regarding the compliance efforts, detailing attempts to retrieve information both manually and through electronic means.