This makes a bit more sense now- The courts have recognised that...

This makes a bit more sense now-

The courts have recognised that an organisation that complies with a subpoena is entitled to have costs and expenses reimbursed so that it is not out of pocket as a result. If you are served with a particularly onerous subpoena, you may seek an order from the Court requiring the issuing party to pay the amount of any reasonable loss or expense incurred in complying with the subpoena.

If you do seek an order for compliance costs you must show that the expenses were incurred in compliance with the subpoena and were reasonable. The documents to be produced should be described in the schedule of the subpoena with reasonable particularity. Accordingly, where a subpoena is defective or too broad, a greater sum in compliance costs will be reasonable, particularly if the subpoena is set aside.

My take is that AMP sought an order for compliance costs for a subpoena. The court awarded the costs- not from the plaintiff though. AMP has to pay AMP. It doesnt appear that this coming judgement is heading in the right direction for the respondent.