KASSA and BITMEAD & ANOR [2006] WASAT 298

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2006] WASAT 298
Act:	EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA)
Case No:	EOA:14/2006	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	JUDGE J ECKERT (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) MS J TOOHEY (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	29/09/06
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for production of psychiatric, medical and telephone records granted Applications for Family Court and Magistrates Court records dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RIBKA KASSA LINDSAY BITMEAD INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED
Catchwords:	Order for production of documents Inspection of documents Legitimate forensic purpose Relevance Section 35 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Tribunal objectives
Legislation:	Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 161 Magistrates Court (General) Rules 2005 (WA), r 37, r 38, r 39, r 40 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 33 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 35, s 35(1), s 35(3)
Case References:	ADI Limited & Ors and Commissioner for Equal Opportunity & Ors [2005] WASAT 259 Apache Northwest Pty Ltd and Ors v Western Power Corporation (1998) 19 WAR 350 Attorney-General v Northern Metro Tramway Co [1892] 3 CH 70 Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc (1996) 70 FCR 403 Harman v Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280 Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2002] NSWSC 973 Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028 Stanley & Anor v Layne Christensen Company & Ors [2004] WASCA 50 Travel Compensation Fund v Blair [2004] NSWSC 501 Nil

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA) CITATION : KASSA and BITMEAD & ANOR [2006] WASAT 298 MEMBER : JUDGE J ECKERT (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

MS J TOOHEY (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : EOA 14 of 2006 BETWEEN : RIBKA KASSA

Applicant

AND

LINDSAY BITMEAD

First Respondent

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Order for production of documents Inspection of documents Legitimate forensic purpose Relevance Section 35 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Tribunal objectives

Legislation:

Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 161

(Page 2)

Magistrates Court (General) Rules 2005 (WA), r 37, r 38, r 39, r 40
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 33
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 35, s 35(1), s 35(3)

Result:

Application for production of psychiatric, medical and telephone records granted

Applications for Family Court and Magistrates Court records dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms J McLean

First Respondent : Ms P Giles

Second Respondent : Ms P Giles

Solicitors:

Applicant : Women's Law Centre of WA

First Respondent : Downings Legal

Second Respondent : Jones Ross Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

ADI Limited & Ors and Commissioner for Equal Opportunity & Ors [2005] WASAT 259
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd and Ors v Western Power Corporation (1998) 19 WAR 350
Attorney-General v Northern Metro Tramway Co [1892] 3 CH 70
Hadid v Lenfest Communications…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kassa and Bitmead and Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] WASAT 298
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved a legal battle between Kassa and Bitmead and two other parties, primarily focused on the request for the production of various documents. The matter was heard by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia. The applicants sought psychiatric, medical, and telephone records, as well as documents from the Family Court and Magistrates Court. The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the scope of the Tribunal's powers under Section 35 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and the criteria for determining the relevance and necessity of the documents for a legitimate forensic purpose. The applicants argued that the documents were crucial for their case, while the respondents contested the relevance and scope of the requests.

In its judgment, the Tribunal carefully examined the relevance and necessity of the requested documents. It considered the objectives of the Tribunal, as outlined in the Act, and weighed the need for the documents against the potential invasion of privacy and the public interest. The Tribunal held that the applicants had demonstrated a legitimate forensic purpose for the psychiatric, medical, and telephone records, which were deemed relevant to the case. However, the requests for Family Court and Magistrates Court records were dismissed as they were found to be irrelevant to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that while the production of certain documents was necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of the dispute, the invasion of privacy and public interest considerations outweighed the benefits of disclosing other documents.

The court granted the application for the production of the psychiatric, medical, and telephone records, while dismissing the applications for the Family Court and Magistrates Court records. This decision balanced the need for relevant information in the proceedings with the protection of privacy and public interest considerations. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of the objectives of the Tribunal and the need for a case-by-case assessment of the relevance and necessity of documents in each proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for production of psychiatric, medical and telephone records granted

Applications for Family Court and Magistrates Court records dismissed

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.