Chris Stackpoole appeared for the respondents/cross-claimants, instructed by O’Loughlin Westhoff.
In summary, this was an application to resist the respondents having access to subpoenaed documents, which they contended were relevant to its security for costs application. The Court largely dismissed the application, holding that most documents sought had apparent relevance to the security for costs issue. However, access to some financial documents were denied for being too remote, and any third-party litigation funding agreements were to be provided subject to appropriate redactions. The Court rejected arguments that the subpoenas were speculative or an attempt to circumvent discovery, noting they were sufficiently precise and served a legitimate forensic purpose. Costs were awarded against the applicant/cross-respondents at 90% due to its limited success.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
