AMACSU v Brimbank City Council

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AMACSU v BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [2009] FMCA 1213

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Discovery – not allowed unless declared to be appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s.45
Workplace Relations Act 1966, s.809
Fair Work Act2009, s.361

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2) [2007] FMCA 639
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 634
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400

Applicant: AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL & SERVICES UNION

First Respondent: BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL

Second Respondent: STAN YOUNG

File Number: MLG 1427 of 2009

Judgment of: Turner FM

Hearing date: 1 December 2009

Date of Last Submission: 1 December 2009

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 9 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Bornstein

Solicitors for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr O’Grady

Solicitors for the Respondents: Maddocks Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application for discovery is dismissed.

2. The matter is fixed for final hearing at 10am on 16 August 2009 with an estimated hearing time of 3 days.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 1427 of 2009

AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL & SERVICES UNION

Applicant

And

BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL

First Respondent

STAN YOUNG

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. An application for discovery of documents has been made by the applicant in this matter. The Respondents oppose the application.

2. Section 45 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (the “Act”) provides:

   (1)Interrogatories and discovery are not allowed in relation to proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court unless the Federal Magistrates Court or a Federal Magistrate declares that it is appropriate, in the interests of the administration of justice, to allow the interrogatories or discovery.

   (2)In deciding whether to make a declaration under subsection (1), the Federal Magistrates Court or a Federal Magistrate must have regard to:

   (a)whether allowing the interrogatories or discovery would be likely to contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings; and

   (b)such other matters (if any) as the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Magistrate considers relevant.

3. The question therefore is:

   Whether it is appropriate in the interests of the administration (management) of justice to allow discovery?

4. In deciding whether to make such a declaration the Court must have regard to whether allowing discovery would be likely to lead to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceeding, and such other matters, if any, that the Court considers relevant.

5. The applicant seeks discovery of six classes of documents being:

   (1)All documents relating to the decision to give Mr Wallis the warning alleged in para.16 of the Statement of Claim; [referred to as Category 3 in the Respondents Outline of Submissions in Respect of Discovery (the Respondents Outline)];

   (2)All documents relating to the disciplinary counselling described in paras.19-21 of the Statement of Claim; (referred to as Category 4 in the Respondents Outline);

   (3)All documents relating to the refuelling incident described in para.22 of the Statement of Claim, including any documents relating to…