Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2)

Case [2007] FMCA 639

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABRAHAMS v QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD (No.2) [2007] FMCA 639

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Unlawful termination – physical disability – inherent reasons exception.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Practice and procedure – discovery – whether discovery in the interests of the administration of justice – meaning of interests of the administration of justice – other relevant factors – relevance – volume – court book – narrowing of issues – consent – benefit to litigation – vulnerability of litigants.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.56(2)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.39(3),45
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05,14.01,14.02
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.659(2)(f) & (3)
Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth)

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd [2007] FMCA 634
Austotel Management Pty Ltd v Jamiseon (1995) 57 FCR 411
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre (In Liquidation) v White Industries (Queensland) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224

Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55

Cosma v Qantas Airways Ltd [2002] FCA 640
Cosma v Qantas Airways Ltd [2002] FCAFC 425
Cucanic v IGA Distribution (Vic) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1226
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1507

Ingui v Ostara and Anor (No. 2) [2003] FMCA 531

Lee v Smith & Ors [2005] FMCA 1013
Queensland v JL Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146

Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
NAQR &Ors v Minister for Immigration (2002) FMCA 271

SZBHT v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 622
Taylor v CGU Insurance Limited [2004] FMCA 799
Tran v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 713
Applicant: KEVIN PATRICK ABRAHAMS
Respondent: QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD
File number: PEG324 of 2006
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 19 April 2007
Date of last submission: 19 April 2007
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 30 April 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J. Grinceri
Solicitors for the Applicant: Taylor Smart
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J. Blackburn
Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

  1. That the Applicant’s application for discovery be dismissed.

  2. Costs to be reserved, to be argued on a date to be fixed.


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG324 OF 2006

KEVIN PATRICK ABRAHAMS

Applicant

And

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

  1. In the course of hearing an application by the Respondent for an extension of time in which to file affidavits[1] the Applicant made an oral application for production of documents listed in a Minute of Proposed Order.  The Applicant sought that the Respondent produce the following documents:

    “1.1     All documents concerning the Respondent’s policy or criteria in effect in 2006 for the redeployment of injured personnel to alternative duties in their pre-injury job classifications;

    1.2      All documents relating to the Respondent’s rehabilitation policy for injured workers in 2006;

    1.3      Documents indicating the number of Airline Service Operators employed by the Respondent in July 2006 who were engaged in performing modified duties (as referred in paragraph 34 (i)-(iii) of the Affidavit Jackie Storen);

    1.4      The Respondent’s Payroll…

Continue reading Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2) [2007] FMCA 639
Case
[2007] FMCA 639
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2) involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Abrahams, and the respondent, Qantas Airways Ltd, concerning a claim for damages arising from an alleged incident on a Qantas flight. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr. Abrahams sought discovery of certain documents from Qantas, which he believed would assist in his claim for damages.

The legal issues before the court included the scope and application of the discovery process in the context of the Federal Court’s rules, and whether the documents sought by Mr. Abrahams were relevant and necessary for the determination of his claim. The court was also required to consider whether the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that the documents were not available through any other means, as required by the court's rules.

The court dismissed the applicant’s application for discovery. It held that Mr. Abrahams had not satisfied the criteria necessary to justify the exercise of the court's discretion to order discovery. The court found that the documents sought were not strictly necessary for the determination of the issues in the proceeding, and that Mr. Abrahams had not demonstrated that the documents could not be obtained through other means. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant demonstrating a clear and compelling need for the documents, and noted that the threshold for granting discovery is high. Consequently, the application for discovery was dismissed, and costs were reserved for further argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the Applicant’s application for discovery be dismissed.

2.

Costs to be reserved, to be argued on a date to be fixed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.