Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd - [2014] QDC 37

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QDC 37

PARTIES:

NADINE BUCKTON
(applicant)

V

WORKFORCE EXPRESS PTY LTD (ACN 127 957 957)
(first respondent)

AND

AUSTRAK PTY LTD (ACN 008 925 031)
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DC No 44 of 2012

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2014

JUDGE:

Devereaux SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Application dismissed.

2. The document, the subject of the application, is to be sealed in an envelope, kept with the file and not opened except on the order of a judge.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GROUNDS FOR RESISTING PRODUCTION – where second defendant has disclosed part of a document and resists disclosure of whole document on the grounds of irrelevance and confidentiality – whether balance of document is relevant – whether, if not, whole document containing relevant material must be disclosed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 211

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 353

Gunns Limited & Ors v Marr & Ors [2008] VSC 464

Menkens v Wintour [2007] 2 Qd R 40

Telstra Corporation v Australis Media Holdings (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland CJ In Eq, 10 February 1997) – BC9700141

COUNSEL:

D Tait QC for the plaintiff

M O’Sullivan for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
Hopgood Ganim for the first defendant

Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the second defendant

In this application the plaintiff seeks disclosure of the whole of a document which the second defendant has disclosed in part. The document is a report of a safety audit, conducted in 2007, of the second defendant’s premises. The second defendant commissioned the report. Other reports of audits, conducted in 1999 and 2011, have been disclosed.

The plaintiff claims she was injured while working at the premises, having been ‘hired to’ the second defendant by a labour hire company, the first defendant. The second defendant made concrete railway sleepers. Part of the process involved a trolley system which ran on rails. The trolleys were known to de-rail from time to time. It seems to me, from the pleadings and other materials before me on this application, that the (relevant) issue between the plaintiff and the second defendant will be whether the latter negligently failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff in ‘re-railing’ a trolley.

The second defendant has disclosed the table of contents of the report; Part 2.1.8 - ‘Manual handling of derailed trolleys. (Item 13 “Top Twenty One”)’; another section of two pages - ‘Manual Handling’ and Table 1 – ‘Summary of items identified and risks assessed’.

I have received and read the whole document on the basis that, subject to my decision, it be kept confidential.

The second defendant concedes that the disclosed parts of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 37
Case: [2014] QDC 37
Decision Date: 4 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the second defendant, Workforce Express Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought discovery and inspection of certain documents from the second defendant, who had already disclosed part of a document but resisted the disclosure of the whole document on the grounds of irrelevance and confidentiality. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the balance of the document was relevant and, if not, whether the entire document containing relevant material must be disclosed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the document in question, which had already been partially disclosed by the second defendant, contained any further relevant material that needed to be inspected. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's right to inspect documents relevant to the case against the second defendant's right to protect confidential information. The court also had to consider whether the disclosure of the entire document was necessary if it contained any relevant material, even if only a part of it had already been disclosed.

The court dismissed the application for further inspection of the document. It found that the partially disclosed document did not contain any additional relevant material, and the balance of the document was irrelevant. The court ruled that the second defendant was not required to disclose the entire document, as the balance did not contain any further relevant information. In addition, the court determined that the document should be sealed in an envelope, kept with the file, and not opened except on the order of a judge, to protect the confidentiality of any sensitive information.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application and to seal the document in question in an envelope, which should be kept with the file and not opened except on the order of a judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. The document, the subject of the application, is to be sealed in an envelope, kept with the file and not opened except on the order of a judge.

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.

CITATION:	Buckton v Workforce Express Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QDC 37
PARTIES:	NADINE BUCKTON (applicant) V WORKFORCE EXPRESS PTY LTD (ACN 127 957 957) (first respondent) AND AUSTRAK PTY LTD (ACN 008 925 031) (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	DC No 44 of 2012
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	4 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 February 2014
JUDGE:	Devereaux SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Application dismissed. 2. The document, the subject of the application, is to be sealed in an envelope, kept with the file and not opened except on the order of a judge.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GROUNDS FOR RESISTING PRODUCTION – where second defendant has disclosed part of a document and resists disclosure of whole document on the grounds of irrelevance and confidentiality – whether balance of document is relevant – whether, if not, whole document containing relevant material must be disclosed Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 211 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v McMahon Services Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 353 Gunns Limited & Ors v Marr & Ors [2008] VSC 464 Menkens v Wintour [2007] 2 Qd R 40 Telstra Corporation v Australis Media Holdings (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland CJ In Eq, 10 February 1997) – BC9700141
COUNSEL:	D Tait QC for the plaintiff M O’Sullivan for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the applicant Hopgood Ganim for the first defendant Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the second defendant