Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited - [2019] FCA 1194 - FCA 2019 case summary — Zoe

CTHFCA

Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited

[2019] FCA 1194

Federal Court of Australia|2019-08-01|Before: Beaumont J, Sackville J, Waddell J, Griffiths J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Federal Court of Australia

Decision date

2019-08-01

Before

Beaumont J, Sackville J, Waddell J, Griffiths J

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 11

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 11

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

[1]

The interlocutory application dated 10 July 2019 is upheld to the extent it relates to the following parts of the subpoenas issued on 20 June 2019 at the respondent's request: (a) paragraph (d) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Andrew Pethebridge of St George Public Hospital; (b) paragraph (d) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Bernard St George; (c) paragraph (d) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Karleng Tan; (d) paragraph (f) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Sarah Guirgus Nguyen of Newton Medical Practice; (e) paragraph (f) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Dzu Nguyen of Botany Medical Centre; (f) paragraph (f) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Merson Mathew of Weston Creek Medical Centre; (g) paragraph (f) of the subpoena addressed to Ms Cindy Watts of Railway Street Medical Centre; and (h) paragraph (f) of the subpoena addressed to Dr Susan Morton of Kaleen Medical Practice.
There is no order as to costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

[2]

GRIFFITHS J: 1 The applicant, whom I will refer to as Dr Quach, moves on an interlocutory application dated 10 July 2019. He seeks to have set aside parts of 10 subpoenas issued by the respondent, whom I will refer to as MLC life. One of those subpoenas is a subpoena addressed to Dr Quach personally, which Dr Quach seeks to have set aside or narrowed. Dr Quach relies upon two affidavits in support of his interlocutory application, both dated 10 July 2019. Dr Quach advanced in his oral submissions three grounds in support of his interlocutory application. 2 The first ground was that parts of the subpoena were, in his submission, fishing for information relating to the question of whether he has engaged in professional misconduct, a matter which he says does not arise in the course of the proceedings in this Court. Dr Quach also contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether or not he has engaged in professional misconduct.

[4]

Consideration 5 I accept Dr Quach's submissions that paragraphs in the subpoenas issued to persons other than himself, which relate to correspondence between the recipient of the subpoena and various regulatory bodies, is not of apparent relevance to the proceedings before this Court. I cite as an example paragraph 2(f) of the subpoena which was addressed to the Botany Medical Council. 6 I order that that paragraph and equivalent paragraphs in the other subpoenas that have been issued to Dr Quach's former employees be struck out. 7 The second matter upon which Dr Quach complains relates to the subpoena addressed to him, and, in particular, those parts of that subpoena that require him to produce income tax returns, company tax returns and other financial records relating to a company called Bennelong Medical Pty Limited. Dr Quach confirmed that Bennelong Medical Pty Limited is his private company. 8 Dr Quach says that the subpoena addressed to him fails to recognise the different legal status of an individual as opposed to a company. In my respectful view, there is no basis for setting aside the relevant paragraphs of that subpoena. Dr Quach is being asked to produce in response to the subpoena documents that are within his control or his possession. It would be surprising if he was not in a position to control the documents relating to his own personal company. If it be the case, unusually, that those documents are not within his control or possession than Dr Quach will simply provide a nil response to those parts of the schedule. Having said that, however, I would be very surprised if he was not within control, or did not have possession of those various documents. 9 The third matter raised by Dr Quach relates to the period covered by the subpoena addressed to him in paragraphs 2 through to 7, and the requirement that he produce various documents for a period spanning from 30 June 2008 to 2018. He says that the relevant paragraphs should be narrowed to an end date of 14 August 2014 when he ceased to practice. 10 I disagree, with respect. I see no reason why the respondent is not entitled to ask for production of the relevant documents for the period specified in the subpoena, having regard to its desire, as put to him by its counsel Mr Opas, to be able to test the claim made by Dr Quach in the proceeding that he was unable to work after 14 August 2014. The company is entitled to have access to the documents in relation to what appears to be a disputed fact on that matter. 11 For all those reasons I uphold the interlocutory application insofar as it relates to paragraph 2(f) of the subpoena issued to the Botany Medical Centre, and to Dr Nguyen at that centre, and to the equivalent paragraphs in the other subpoenas that have been issued to Dr Quach's former employers. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.

Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (6)