PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v G.E.T. Engineering Pty Ltd

This decision came out of a larger Federal Court dispute between PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd and G.E.T. Engineering Pty Ltd. The reasons do not set out the full commercial background, but they do show that the substantive proceeding involved claims connected with something referred to as "Driftrunners". The Court was not deciding those claims here. Instead, it was dealing with a procedural argument about how subpoenas should be handled going forward.

The immediate trigger was a batch of nine subpoenas sought by PPK. G.E.T. said those subpoenas had important defects and that the way they were handled created case management problems. On that basis, G.E.T. asked the Court to make a standing order requiring PPK to place G.E.T. on notice of any future requests for subpoenas it filed, with future requests and objections to be managed in case management hearings.

That is a significant request in Federal Court practice. Subpoenas are often used to obtain documents from third parties such as accountants, suppliers, customers or other market participants. If one party can force advance notice of every future subpoena request, that changes the practical balance of how evidence gathering happens in the case. The Court therefore had to decide whether the history of the existing subpoenas justified departing from the ordinary framework.

The timeline mattered. Requests for leave to issue the nine subpoenas were filed on 2 March 2026 and referred to a Registrar on 12 March 2026. Leave appears to have been granted on 19 March 2026, subject to two conditions. Amended subpoenas were then lodged for filing on 20 March 2026 and accepted on that date. Later, Registrar orders extended the compliance date to 28 April 2026 and dealt with inspection and uplifting of documents for four subpoenas that had already been answered.

G.E.T.'s complaints fell into two broad categories. The first category was about the content of the subpoenas and the requests for leave. For eight of the nine subpoenas, G.E.T. argued that one paragraph was not confined to documents relating to the Driftrunners, even though the other paragraphs were. G.E.T. described that as the most serious example of non-compliance.

It also argued that the subpoenas were not limited by time, despite the pleaded allegations apparently relating to a period commencing in about 2022.

G.E.T. also said the requests for leave did not adequately explain why the documents could not be obtained through other procedures. That complaint was tied to paragraph [3.5(d)] of the Subpoenas and Notices to Produce Practice Note, which says a subpoena request must make clear, in concise terms, why it may not be possible or appropriate to obtain the documents or cooperation through other procedures.

G.E.T. said that was especially important because standard discovery was already in place and documents had been exchanged between the parties.

A separate complaint concerned the subpoena to J&T Accountants & Advisors Pty Ltd. That subpoena sought accounting records said to evidence the manufacture, supply or sale of Driftrunner parts and accessories by G.E.T. The respondent argued that, if those accounting records were within its control for discovery purposes, there was a real question about why a subpoena to the accountant was needed at all.

The second category of complaint was about notice. G.E.T. said it should have been told when the subpoena requests were filed on 2 March 2026 because the subpoenas were inherently likely to be controversial. It said it did not know about the requests at a case management hearing on 20 March 2026, only received copies of the subpoenas on 1 April 2026, and only received copies of the requests themselves on 14 April 2026.

A central part of the judgment is the distinction between the Federal Court Rules and the Subpoenas and Notices to Produce Practice Note, known as GPN-SUBP. The Court set out both, but treated them differently.

Under rule 24.01(1), a subpoena may be issued only with the leave of the Court. Under rule 24.01(2), a party may apply for leave to issue a subpoena without notice to any other party. That point was critical. The Court treated the ability to seek leave without notice as a basic premise of the framework.

Rule 24.16(2) then deals with service after the subpoena has been served on the addressee. It requires the issuing party to serve a copy of a subpoena to produce on each other party as soon as practicable after the subpoena has been served on the addressee. Rule 24.15 deals with setting aside a subpoena or obtaining other relief in relation to it.

The Practice Note reinforces and elaborates on that framework. Paragraph [3.2] says a subpoena request may be made without notice to the other parties or the addressee. It also says that if the request is likely to be of significant controversy, the issuing party should consider whether it would be appropriate to put the other parties and or the addressee on notice before making the request.

Paragraph [3.5] sets out what information must be included in a subpoena request, including relevance, reasonableness, notice to the addressee, and why the material cannot appropriately be obtained through other procedures. Paragraph [4.7] repeats the requirement to serve a copy of a subpoena to produce on each other party as soon as practicable after service on the addressee.

Paragraph [6.1] says a subpoena must not be drafted in unnecessarily wide or general terms and must specify documents with reasonable particularity. Paragraph [6.15] encourages parties to explore efficient ways of resolving subpoena disputes early. Part 7 deals with applications to set aside subpoenas and objections to production or inspection.

The important legal point is that the Court expressly said a practice note is not a Rule of Court or equivalent to a Rule of Court. That did not make the Practice Note irrelevant. It remained part of the procedural landscape and informed how the Court viewed subpoena practice. But it meant G.E.T. could not simply point to a practice note provision and treat it as if it automatically overrode the Rules or created a mandatory notice regime where the Rules themselves contemplated requests being made without notice.

Stellios J refused to make the proposed order. The Court held that the respondent had not shown a sufficient reason to displace the ordinary framework for future subpoena requests. The order sought by G.E.T. would have been a significant departure from the usual process because it would have allowed the respondent to scrutinise each future subpoena request in advance of, or contemporaneously with, filing, even though the Rules contemplate that requests can be made without notice.

The Court gave several reasons.

First, one of the main drafting complaints had already been partly resolved. PPK conceded that there had been an inadvertent omission in paragraph [4] of eight subpoenas, and a consent order was made after the hearing to modify the outstanding subpoenas and serve that order on the remaining addressees. That reduced the force of the most serious complaint.

Secondly, on the limited evidence before the Court, it was difficult to assess some of the broader criticisms about compliance with paragraph [3.5(d)] and paragraph [6.1] of the Practice Note. The Court was not prepared to conclude, on that material, that the subpoenas lacked reasonable particularity merely because no time period was specified, especially where the requests were otherwise confined to documents relating to Driftrunners, leaving aside the conceded error.

The Court again stressed that provisions of a practice note are not to be treated like Rules of Court.

Thirdly, the Court was not persuaded that there had been any contravention of the relevant notice requirements. There was no requirement to give notice before the subpoena requests were filed. As to service after issue, the evidence did not clearly establish when the subpoenas had been served on the addressees, so the Court was not satisfied there had been non-compliance with rule 24.16(2) or paragraph [4.7] of the Practice Note.

The respondent had also accepted there was no suggestion that the applicant would not comply with its obligation to serve copies after service on subpoena recipients.

Fourthly, the Court held that the proper way to deal with alleged defects in existing or future subpoenas was through the established challenge and objection processes under the Rules and the Practice Note. There was no indication those processes were inadequate in this case.

Fifthly, although the complaints related to nine subpoenas, eight were in the same terms and all were requested on the same day. The Court said there was no suggestion of a pattern of behaviour that needed to be addressed by a blanket forward-looking rule.

The Court also rejected the respondent's reliance on earlier cases. It said Tan v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Defence) did not show that subpoena applications must be heard on notice. It also said Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia involved unusual facts, including a possible large number of subpoenas to prominent public figures, and was far removed from the circumstances here.

Those cases supported the proposition that applications for leave to issue subpoenas are generally considered without notice unless the circumstances require otherwise.

For businesses, the practical message is not that subpoena practice is loose or unregulated. It is that the Federal Court already has a structured framework, and the Court will usually expect parties to work within it. If your business is defending a claim, you may not get advance warning before the other side seeks leave to issue subpoenas to third parties. That can be uncomfortable, especially where the third parties include accountants, suppliers, customers or others holding commercially sensitive information.

But the answer will usually be to assess the subpoena quickly and use the available objection or set-aside mechanisms if needed.

If your business is issuing subpoenas, this case is a reminder to be careful at the front end. Draft requests with reasonable particularity. Keep them tied to the issues in dispute. Think about whether the time period is appropriately confined. Be ready to explain, in concise terms, why the material cannot appropriately be obtained through other procedures.

If a request is likely to be controversial, the Practice Note says you should consider whether prior notice is appropriate, even though that is not a binding rule in the same way as the Rules themselves.

The judgment also shows the value of prompt correction. PPK's concession that there had been an inadvertent omission in one paragraph of eight subpoenas, followed by a consent order to modify the outstanding subpoenas, mattered to the Court's assessment. A business that identifies an obvious drafting error should fix it quickly rather than defend the indefensible.

Another practical point is record keeping. The dispute here involved arguments about when requests were filed, when leave was granted, when subpoenas were lodged, when copies were provided, and whether service obligations had been met. Businesses and their lawyers should keep a clear chronology of those steps. In procedural disputes, timing can be as important as substance.

Finally, this case is a useful reminder not to overstate what a practice note does. Practice notes matter and courts expect parties to take them seriously. But if you are alleging a breach, you need to distinguish between a binding Rule, a procedural expectation, and a discretionary consideration. That distinction can affect both the strength of your argument and the remedy the Court is willing to grant.

The judgment was delivered on 13 May 2026 by Stellios J in the Federal Court of Australia. The Court refused the respondent's proposed notice order and directed the parties to file short submissions by 20 May 2026 on whether a costs order should follow and, if so, on what basis.

Because the reasons only direct further submissions on costs, this page does not state any final costs outcome. The decision explained here is the refusal of the proposed case management order.