In the Matter of LJ Nanyang Group Pty Ltd

Judgment (ex tempore)

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: The fourth defendant in these proceedings is Wen Tao Lu, a male. On 11 July 2012, the plaintiff caused to be issued subpoenas for production addressed to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and to McDonald Conveyancing NSW Pty Ltd, seeking production of documents which for present purposes are sufficiently described as relating to "Mr Wen Tao Lu, also known as Lawrence Lu, date of birth 15 July 1963", in connection with a property at Fontenoy Road, Macquarie Park for which a folio identifier was nominated.

2. [2]

   After an initial nil return (which is to be found in Subpoena Documents - Packet S1) the Commonwealth Bank produced documents on 9 August 2012, which pertained to one Miss Wen Tao Lu, of the specified address at Macquarie Park. Those documents are now comprised in Packet S6. On 31 July, McDonald Conveyancing produced documents in response to the subpoena addressed to it, also relating to Miss Wen Tao Lu, and those documents are comprised in Packet S4.

3. [3]

   As it transpires, Miss Wen Tao Lu is not the fourth defendant, and this is now accepted by the plaintiff. She has nothing at all to do with the case, and the documents produced have nothing to do with the case. As it turns out, although it was not unreasonable for the recipients of the subpoenas to produce the documents that they have produced, in light of the way in which the subpoena is framed, those documents do not strictly fall within the terms of the subpoena, because they do not relate to the Mr Wen Tao Lu referred to in the subpoena.

4. [4]

   In those circumstances, the appropriate course is that the documents, all of which are copies in respect of which the producing parties have made no claim for return, be destroyed.

5. [5]

   The plaintiff has inspected the documents produced, and made copies of them, and those documents ought to be destroyed. It is not known at this stage whether the defendants have inspected or made copies of the documents, but if they have, they too should be destroyed.

6. [6]

   I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      Order that the documents produced on subpoena and comprised in Packets S1, S4 and S6 be destroyed.

   2. (2)

      Order that the plaintiff destroy any copies or notes of the said documents in its possession, custody or power and file an affidavit verifying such destruction.

   3. (3)

      Order that the defendants destroy any copies, notes or records of the said documents in their possession, custody or power and file an affidavit verifying such destruction and serve a copy thereof on Miss Wen Tao Lu.

   4. (4)

      Reserve liberty to the defendants to apply on three day's notice to vary or set aside this order.

   5. (5)

      Direct that the plaintiff notify the defendants of these orders.