http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/442.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal, and appeal, from interlocutory order of Federal Magistrate (now a Federal Circuit Court Judge) for discovery – whether order for discovery made upon declaration that such an order was “appropriate, in the interests of the administration of justice” pursuant to s 45 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) – whether order for discovery fair in circumstances where costs of making discovery not recoverable – discussion of discovery in proceedings generally – whether application for leave to appeal, and appeal, within no-costs Fair Work Division

PRIVILEGE – application of privilege from self-incrimination in proceeding for civil penalty – whether “proper officer” available to swear affidavit of documents pursuant to discovery order

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1210.html

CONTEMPT OF COURT – whether contempt by applicant company, a director and employee by breach of Harman obligation – whether used respondents’ discovered documents for collateral purpose of soliciting business from respondents’ customers – whether the applicant should be compelled to produce further documents and swear affidavit in relation to contempt – discussion of nature of contempt proceedings and standard of proof – evidence insufficient to satisfy relevant standard of proof – notice of motion dismissed

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 128, 187

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/3.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – privilege against self-incrimination – proceeding for infringement of copyright and of registered trade mark – facts pleaded also constitute offences – Australian Federal Police seized documents in execution of search warrants in relation to suspected commission of the offences – applicants seek discovery by corporate respondent and by individual who is its only director and secretary – applicants serve notice to produce on the company and the individual calling for production of any record of the documents seized by the Australian Federal Police – whether individual and company excused from giving discovery and complying with the notice to produce on ground that giving discovery and complying with notice would involve individual incriminating himself

[2004] NSWCCA 67

Whether the proper officer of a company can claim privilege against self-incrimination where a subpoena duces tecum is served on the corporation

meaning of “proper officer”

whether the “proper office” requires the express authority of the company to answer the subpoena

whether it is oppressive on the accused or an abuse of process for a corporation to comply with a subpoena where the accused is the sole director and secretary of the corporation

whether the accused is being asked to assist in the preparation of the Crown case

whether the process of gathering documents is an exercise of executive or judicial power.