• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The subpoena was issued on 15 July 2003 and sought a substantial body of documents. Many had already been supplied. The union’s National Executive President, Michael John O’Sullivan, had sworn an affidavit dated 5 September 2003 identifying documents made available and items sought by the subpoena that he said did not exist ([2]). While O’Sullivan was being cross-examined, a point of principle arose, which the judge considered should be resolved.

The example was item 1 in the subpoena schedule. It sought a listing of members from the former Victorian Energy & Services Branch, including each member’s name, employer, industry division allocation, employment status, part-time or full-time status, membership number, job title and department. It requested the information as at 8 January 2001 and specified electronic formats ([3]).

The union accepted that a document could include electronic information that could simply be printed into hard copy. Its argument was that this did not extend to information that had to be assembled into a new document using computer expertise, potentially at considerable expense from outside consultants ([5]). Heerey J accepted that distinction. The formal order stated that the union was not obliged to produce material “not already in existence” in answer to the subpoena ([orders; 8]).

Why the court decided this way

The Court began with the text of O 27 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules. It defines a subpoena for production as an order in writing requiring the named person to attend as directed and “produce a document or thing for the purpose of evidence” ([4]). Heerey J treated the wording as requiring the production of a document or thing, rather than the creation of one.

The Court also considered s 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), which defines “document” to include paper or other material bearing writing or meaningful marks, and material from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced, with or without another article or device ([6]). Heerey J considered the union’s proposed distinction consistent with that definition. In particular, he accepted that electronic information capable of being simply printed could be a document, while drawing a line at information that needed to be turned into a new document by applying computer expertise ([5]-[6]).

The reasoning also considered what a subpoena is for. The Court described it as compulsory court process used to require people, often non-parties to litigation, to produce documents or things so the dispute can be properly adjudicated ([7]). That purpose does not, in the Court’s view, make the subpoena a general mechanism for compelling a person to create material. Heerey J also noted the Court’s concern that its process should not impose oppressive burdens ([8]).

The conclusion followed from those points. An existing document, whether paper or electronic, is distinct from a document that has to be created. The latter did not fall within the terms of the Rules or accord with the principles underlying subpoenas ([8]). The judgment therefore resolved the point of principle in the union’s favour: it was not legally obliged under this subpoena to produce material that was not already in existence.

That conclusion is limited to the distinction considered. It does not say that all electronic information is outside a subpoena, nor that electronic material is only producible if it exists as a paper printout. The reasons expressly recognise electronic information that can simply be printed as capable of being a document ([5]). The key question in the Court’s analysis is whether the requested material already exists in document form, rather than whether it is stored on paper or electronically.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment identifies the relevant procedural provision as O 27 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules and quotes the definition of “document” in s 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ([4], [6]). It does not discuss earlier cases or describe a dispute among authorities on whether a subpoena can compel the creation of a document. On the material provided, it is not possible to set out a broader “before” position based on earlier case law.

For the issue before Heerey J, the judgment states a clear distinction: a subpoena for production requires an existing document or thing, and does not oblige the recipient to create a new document ([8]). The distinction accommodates electronic records. An existing electronic document that can be simply printed may be within the obligation, but generating a new listing by applying computer expertise is not required by the subpoena as the Court construed it ([5], [8]).

The judgment also distinguishes legal obligation from consensual cooperation. Heerey J observed that preparing an extract or summary from a large quantity of paper or electronic material could be mutually convenient. If prepared and produced by consent, that arrangement could assist the parties. But the judge expressly characterised that as cooperation, not the legal obligation resting on a person subpoenaed for production ([9]).

The available judgment does not establish what subsequent rules or authorities may have said about electronic data, searches, data processing or document production. Nor does it decide how the distinction applies to every form of stored information. Any account of later developments would require sources beyond this judgment.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [4], the Court quotes O 27 r 1 as defining a subpoena for production as an order to “produce a document or thing for the purpose of evidence.” In plain English, the subpoena power described here is directed at producing material for use as evidence.

At [5], the union accepted that a document could include information in electronic form that could be “simply printed out into hard copy”. The parties’ point of difference was whether the subpoena also reached information that needed to be created or assembled using computer expertise. This passage matters because the Court did not treat electronic storage as a reason by itself to exclude material.

At [7], the Court says the “essence of a subpoena” is to oblige persons to produce documents or things so the dispute can be properly adjudicated. That frames the purpose of the process, while the next paragraph sets its limit.

At [8], Heerey J says a “clear distinction” can be made between an existing document and “something which has to be created”. The Court considered the creation of a new document outside the Rules and inconsistent with the principles underlying subpoenas. Put simply, the order can require production of existing material, but the Court did not read it as requiring the recipient to build a new record.

At [9], the Court recognises that it may be sensible for parties to cooperate in producing a summary or extract, and that they may do so by consent. The judge then distinguishes this practical possibility from the legal obligation imposed by the subpoena. Consent-based cooperation is not the same as compulsory production.

The formal order reflects this reasoning directly: the respondent was “not obliged to produce” material not already in existence in answer to the subpoena dated 15 July 2003. It resolves the specific point raised during the subpoena’s return, rather than deciding the substantive proceeding about the union’s rules.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The judgment is most directly relevant to a subpoena item that requests a report, list, schedule or summary, where the recipient says that particular document has not already been created. The example here was a requested membership listing with numerous fields and a historical “as at” date ([3]). The recipient argued that producing it could require computer expertise and possibly outside consultants ([5]).

The distinction is not simply between paper and electronic formats. Heerey J accepted that electronic information capable of being simply printed can count as a document ([5]). The issue is whether the subpoena asks for existing electronic material, or instead requires the recipient to create a new compilation. A request for existing files is therefore analytically different, under the reasoning, from a request that information be assembled into a new listing.

The judgment may also be relevant where compliance is said to impose a substantial burden. The Court noted the need to avoid oppressive burdens ([8]), and the union’s submission referred to expertise and potential expense ([5]). But the reasons do not establish a separate test for deciding when a production obligation is oppressive. The ruling rested on the absence of an obligation to create a document under the Rules, not on a detailed assessment of the cost or proportionality of each requested item.

The facts that may need close attention in applying the reasoning include what records already exist, whether the requested information is already held in a form that can simply be printed, and what work would be needed to produce the requested format. The judgment does not supply a technical threshold for distinguishing a straightforward retrieval or printout from the creation of a new document. That remains a matter requiring careful consideration of the records and the particular subpoena wording.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment reproduced here does not refer to any later decisions, and no later legal sources have been provided. Accordingly, it is not possible on this material to state whether later courts followed, distinguished, applied or limited Jacomb. The precedent-relationship field is therefore empty rather than attributing treatment that the available text does not establish.

Within the judgment itself, Heerey J did not cite or discuss other cases. His reasoning rests on the text of O 27 r 1, the quoted definition in s 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), the purpose of subpoena process and the concern about burdens imposed by court process ([4]-[8]). The point can be described as the holding of this Federal Court judgment, but any account of its subsequent treatment or current status would need further authorities.

Still-open questions

The judgment does not explain precisely when work on existing electronic data becomes the creation of a new document. It accepts that electronic information can be a document if it can be simply printed ([5]), but does not define “simply” or address more complex processes such as searching, filtering, sorting or combining existing records. The requested member listing involved many specified fields and a historical date, but the reasons do not describe the union’s information systems or determine exactly what technical steps would have been required.

The judgment also does not decide how the result would differ if the requested information existed across multiple records but had never previously been collated. Its general statement distinguishes existing documents from something that has to be created ([8]), but the reasons do not set out a detailed test for fragmented or distributed electronic information.

Nor does the decision determine the effect of a subpoena’s wording in other circumstances. The order concerned a subpoena issued on 15 July 2003 and a particular request for a member listing. The ruling states that material not already in existence need not be produced under that subpoena. It does not decide every question about the scope, validity, relevance or burden of subpoenas generally.

Finally, the Court’s observation about summaries and extracts leaves their practical arrangement to consent ([9]). The judgment does not say what would happen if parties disagreed about whether a proposed summary was voluntary, or whether a different legal process could require work beyond production of existing documents. Those questions are not resolved in the nine paragraphs of reasons.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.