Document-production orders under section 214 may be challenged immediately where they are premature, oppressive, or too broad.

Under section 214, a proposed examinee may apply at once to discharge or vary a document-production direction without first disobeying it and risking committal or attachment. The Court distinguished objections to questions from objections to production orders, and treated immediate challenge as the proper course. It also held that the power to require books and papers must be exercised cautiously: an order compelling production of a large class of documents was premature and oppressive where relevance and privilege had not yet been worked out and the proper scope of production could be identified after examination began. The production requirement was discharged to that extent, with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an examinee ordered to produce documents under section 214 could properly approach the Court to have the production requirement discharged or varied without first disobeying the order. (ii) Whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the order requiring production of a large class of documents was oppressive and ought to be discharged.

Issue (i): Whether an examinee ordered to produce documents under section 214 could properly approach the Court to have the production requirement discharged or varied without first disobeying the order.

Analysis: The application to challenge the production direction was held to be the proper course. A proposed examinee should not be compelled to disobey an order and expose himself to the risk of committal or attachment before obtaining a ruling on its validity. The Court distinguished the position of objections to examination questions from the position of objections to a document-production direction.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to move the Court to have the production requirement discharged.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the order requiring production of a large class of documents was oppressive and ought to be discharged.

Analysis: The Court held that, although section 214 confers an inquisitorial jurisdiction and authorises production of books and papers in appropriate cases, the discretion must be exercised cautiously. On the material before it, requiring a proposed examinee to bring a large number of documents at that stage was premature and oppressive, especially where some documents might later prove irrelevant or privileged and where the proper scope of production could be determined after the examination began.

Conclusion: The production direction was improper and was discharged.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the document-production requirement succeeded, and the order was set aside to that extent with costs awarded to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 214, the Court's power to require production of documents must be exercised so as not to impose an oppressive burden, and a proposed examinee may seek immediate discharge of an improper production order rather than risk disobedience.

---