James v Western Downs Regional Council - [2021] QIRC 51

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:		James v Western Downs Regional Council [2021] QIRC 051
PARTIES:		James, Mark (Applicant) v Western Downs Regional Council (Respondent)
CASE NO:		TD/2020/45
PROCEEDING:		Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:		11 February 2021
MEMBER: HEARD AT:		Power IC Brisbane
ORDERS:		1. Tara Medical Centre is to produce Ms Ivy Hite's medical records from 7 November 2017 until 7 November 2020 within 14 days of this Order. 2. Tarcoola Aged Care Facility is to produce Ms Ivy Hite's progress notes and resident records from 7 November 2017 until 7 November 2020 within 14 days of this Order.
CATCHWORDS:		INDUSTRIAL LAW - APPLICATION IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS – where there is an objection to a notice of non-party disclosure – direct relevance – whether description of documents lacking in particularity
LEGISLATION: CASES:		Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), rr 64B, 64E, 64F and 117 DP World Brisbane Pty Ltd v Rogers & Anor [2014] ICQ 10 Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31 Lawler v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Council of the City of Gold Coast [2016] QIRC 87 Mullins v Workers' Compensation Regulator; Ex parte Drake International Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2020] QIRC 003 Westsand P/L v Johnson [1999] QSC 337 Weston and Parer v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney General) (No 4) [2016] QIRC 75
APPEARANCES:		Mr Reitano of Counsel, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers, for the Applicant Mr Murdoch QC, of Counsel, instructed by McCullough Robertson, for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Background

The Applicant in the substantive proceedings, Mr Mark James ('the Applicant'), filed an Application in Existing Proceedings seeking an order lifting the stay of a Form 29 Notice of Non-Party Disclosure ('NNPD') that had been served on Tara Medical Centre ('TMC'). The Applicant also seeks an order requiring the production of documents held by the Tarcoola Aged Care Facility ('TACF') sought in a Form 32 and 32B Attendance Notice to Produce ('ANP') filed by the Applicant.
The Applicant submits that the documents sought are relevant to matters at issue in the substantive proceedings before the Commission, including whether there was a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal.
The Western Downs Regional Council ('the Respondent') has objected to the NNPD as an affected party and the ANP as the nominated party. TACF is wholly owned by the Respondent.
The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether TMC is required to produce documents identified in the NNPD and whether TACF is required to produce documents identified in the ANP.
The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a directions order following which a hearing was held in the Industrial Relations Commission.
Relevant legislative framework
Rule 64B of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules') provides the following:
64B Notice requiring non-party production
(1)A party to a proceeding may, by notice of non-party production, require a person who is not party to the proceeding (the non-party) to produce to the party, within 14 days after service of the notice…

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 James v Western Downs Regional Council

Details

AGLC: James v Western Downs Regional Council [2021] QIRC 51
Case: [2021] QIRC 51
Decision Date: 11 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of James v Western Downs Regional Council, the court was asked to determine an objection to a notice of non-party disclosure. The applicant sought to obtain medical records and progress notes from two healthcare facilities regarding Ms Ivy Hite. The respondent, Western Downs Regional Council, raised an objection to this disclosure on the basis that the description of the documents was not sufficiently particular.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's description of the documents to be disclosed was sufficiently particular. The court had to assess whether the documents described in the notice were directly relevant to the matters in issue between the parties and whether the description was sufficiently detailed to allow the recipient to identify the documents.

In determining the objection, the court found that the description of the documents in the notice was sufficiently particular. The court noted that the records sought were relevant to the issues in the proceeding and were necessary to enable the applicant to effectively prepare their case. The court further held that the description provided was adequate as it specified the type of documents, the person they related to, and the relevant time period. This allowed the healthcare facilities to reasonably identify the documents in question. As a result, the court dismissed the objection and ordered that the medical records and progress notes be produced within 14 days of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Tara Medical Centre is to produce Ms Ivy Hite's medical records from 7 November 2017 until 7 November 2020 within 14 days of this Order.

2. Tarcoola Aged Care Facility is to produce Ms Ivy Hite's progress notes and resident records from 7 November 2017 until 7 November 2020 within 14 days of this Order.

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.