AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 13 March 2026

Rex v Landrey

[2026] NSWDC 55

Fraud & dishonesty
CRIMINAL LAW COSTS APPLICATION PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL UNDER SUBPOEN A SUBPOENA SCOPE REASONABLE COMPLIANCE COSTS

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 55
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 13 March 2026
Judge(s): Acting Judge Bennett SC

Background

Geoffrey Vance Landrey is awaiting trial in the District Court on 25 criminal offences alleged to contravene sections 192R(1)(b) and 254(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1900. The trial, to be heard by judge alone, was estimated at three weeks and was scheduled to commence on 23 March 2026. The charges appear to relate to alleged false representations made during the mediation of a commercial dispute involving two companies — Naturelink Environmental Services Pty Ltd and Combined Property Holdings Pty Ltd — in Queensland Supreme Court proceedings.

In November 2025, a subpoena to produce documents was issued at the accused's request, directed to the accounting and insolvency firm Jirsch Sutherland & Co (the applicants), who had acted as liquidators of Naturelink. The subpoena, as originally framed, called for the entire liquidation file, all related emails, documents referring to the Queensland Supreme Court proceedings, and all emails exchanged with three named individuals over a period stretching back more than a decade. The applicants objected that the subpoena was oppressive and estimated the cost of compliance at approximately $50,000.

By Notice of Motion filed in January 2026, the applicants sought to set aside several paragraphs of the subpoena and to narrow its scope. During argument, the accused's counsel conceded that a narrower formulation of one paragraph (paragraph 4, limited to documents referring to the Queensland Supreme Court proceedings and their settlement) would suffice. However, despite producing documents to the court in compliance with that narrowed call, no party ultimately sought access to the documents produced. The dispute therefore crystallised around a single question: should the accused be required to meet the applicants' reasonable costs of complying with the subpoena?

  • Whether the court had power in criminal proceedings to order the accused to pay the reasonable costs incurred by a non-party in complying with a subpoena issued at the accused's request.
  • Whether the applicants acted reasonably in taking steps to comply with the subpoena before the court ruled on the motion to set it aside, given correspondence from the accused's solicitors suggesting the applicants need not have done so.
  • Whether the scope and precision of the original subpoena were adequate, and what impact any deficiency had on the costs incurred.
  • What was the appropriate mechanism for assessing the quantum of those costs.

Decision

Acting Judge Bennett SC found in favour of the applicants on the threshold question: the court did have power to order the accused to pay the reasonable costs of compliance with the subpoena. The judgment considered provisions under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and, in the alternative, Part 53 Rule 23 of the District Court Rules 1973.

A key factual finding was that the applicants were reasonable in concluding they were obliged to comply with the subpoena. The subpoena was a court order that, on its face, required compliance. The accused's solicitors had not withdrawn the subpoena, nor had they made any clear request or direction that the applicants should refrain from complying pending the court's ruling. On the contrary, the accused's correspondence urged prompt compliance and challenged the applicants to identify any power for a costs order — a stance that the court appears to have regarded as contributing to the applicants' reasonable belief that compliance was expected.

The court was also critical of the breadth and imprecision of the original subpoena. The documents called for — including the entire liquidation file (comprising more than 22 lever arch folders, 964MB of electronic files, and approximately 34GB of emails) — were not identified with adequate precision and bore a disproportionate relationship to the actual issues in dispute. The accused ultimately conceded that a far narrower call would suffice, and then chose not to seek access to the documents produced. His Honour drew the available inference that the subpoena was nonetheless issued in circumstances where the documents might have been relevant to the accused's case, making the decision not to seek access noteworthy.

In the result, the court ordered that the accused pay the applicants' reasonable costs of compliance, with the quantum to be assessed by the appropriate officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales — a course which the court was told by the District Court Registry is the usual procedure in such cases.

Orders Made

  • The subpoena was narrowed: paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the schedule were set aside, and paragraph 4 was amended to a more confined formulation directed to documents referring to the Queensland Supreme Court proceedings and their settlement.
  • The accused was ordered to pay the applicants' reasonable costs incurred in complying with the subpoena.
  • The quantum of those costs was to be assessed by the appropriate officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Key Takeaways

  • Non-parties served with subpoenas in criminal proceedings may recover reasonable compliance costs from the issuing party. The District Court confirmed its power to make such an order under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the District Court Rules 1973, even in criminal matters where costs orders are less common.

  • A subpoena constitutes a court order requiring compliance on its face. Where the issuing party neither withdrew the subpoena nor made a clear request that the recipient refrain from complying pending a challenge, the Court found that the issuing party could not credibly argue that compliance was premature or unnecessary.

  • Broad, catch-all subpoena categories risk being set aside for oppression. Acting Judge Bennett SC noted that categories capturing vast volumes of material disproportionate to the issues in dispute may constitute oppression and expose the issuing party to adverse costs orders.

  • Solicitors' correspondence played a central role in evaluating the reasonableness of the applicants' decision to comply. The absence of any clear communication from the accused's solicitors that the recipient need not comply pending a ruling on the subpoena challenge weighed against the accused's argument that compliance was premature.

  • Quantification of the compliance costs was directed to be assessed by a Supreme Court officer. The District Court identified this as the usual mechanism for such quantification, adding a further procedural stage to the costs recovery process.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192R(1)(b), 254(b)(ii)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 227
- District Court Act 1973 (NSW), Part 53 Rule 23
- Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Cases:
- Attorney General for New South Wales v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65
- R v DK [2023] NSWCCA 281
- R v Jenkin (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 697
- R v Obeid [2018] NSWSC 1024 at [21]–[34] (Beech-Jones J)
- R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86