Kearney v Accrue Property Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kearney v Accrue Property Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1934

File number(s): MLG 3058 of 2018
Judgment of: HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON QC
Date of judgment: 29 July 2021
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Practice and procedure – application for leave to file a second further amended statement of claim where the claim arises out of an employment relationship – application seeking the production of certain documents by the Respondents – application for amendment to timetabling orders – leave to file second further amended statement of claim granted – application seeking production of certain documents granted – amendments to timetabling orders accepted
Cases cited:

Grochowski v Kearney [2020] FCA 1248

Joseph Kearney v Accrue Property Proprietary Limited & Anor [2020] FCCA 74

Number of paragraphs: 9
Date of last submission/s: 30 July 2021
Date of hearing: 29 & 30 July 2021
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:  Ms Preston
Solicitor for the Applicant: Gil Boffa & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents Mr Galbraith
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: DSS Law

ORDERS

MLG 3058 of 2018
BETWEEN:

JOSEPH KEARNEY

Applicant

AND:

AND:

ACCRUE PROPERTY PTY LTD

First Respondent

JEFFREY JAMES GROCHOWSKI

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON QC

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The liability hearing listed to commence on 23 August 2021 at 10:00 am for an estimate of four (4) days be vacated.

2.All extant directions contained in the Orders of Her Honour Judge C. E. Kirton QC dated 2 October 2020 are discharged. To avoid any doubt, all continuing obligations of discovery by the First Respondent survive, as do any orders in relation to costs.

3.The matter be listed for a liability hearing in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 19 September 2022 at 10:00 am with an estimated hearing time of three (3) days (Liability Hearing).

4.The Applicant has leave to file the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim appended to the Applicant’s Application in a Case filed on 6 July 2021 (Application in a Case).

5.By 4:00 pm on 26 August 2021, the First Respondent produce by way of discovery the following documents:

In relation to paragraphs 228 and 230 of the Affidavit of Joan Grochowski affirmed on 25 February 2021 and filed on 26 February 2021 (Grochowski Affidavit):

(a)All records/documents in its customer relationship management database in respect of each of the specified clients, as contained in each of the following folders/tabs:

(i)Script 1;

(ii)Inbound;

(iii)Appointment;

(iv)Quality Assurance;

(v)Membership;

(vi)Sale;

(vii)Post Sale;

(viii)Invoicing; and

(ix)Calls and History;

(b)To the extent they have not already been provided, the Sales Administration Forms and the Sales Authorities for:

(i)Each of the properties listed in paragraphs 228 and 230 of the Grochowski Affidavit; and

(ii)Any property subsequently purchased by any of the clients listed in paragraph 228 (that is, after the listed sale was “cancelled and did not proceed”) of the Grochowski Affidavit.

(c)In relation to paragraph 233 of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kearney v Accrue Property Pty Ltd 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
[2021] FCCA 1934
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kearney v Accrue Property Pty Ltd concerned an application before Her Honour Judge C.E Kirton QC in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Kearney, sought leave to file a second further amended statement of claim, production of certain documents from the respondents, and amendments to existing timetabling orders. The dispute arose from an employment relationship between the parties.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant leave to file a second further amended statement of claim, whether to order the production of the documents sought by the applicant, and whether to amend the timetabling orders. The respondents' position on these applications was not detailed in the provided text, beyond the implication that the second respondent might have grounds to claim privilege against self-exposure to penalty.

The court granted leave for the applicant to file a second further amended statement of claim and granted the application for the production of documents. The court also accepted the proposed amendments to the timetabling orders. The specific reasoning for these decisions, beyond the fact that they were granted, is not elaborated upon in the provided text.

The orders made by the court included a condition that should the Second Respondent waive his privilege against self-exposure to penalty, he must file and serve a Third Further Amended Defence, any affidavit and other material on which he intends to rely, and an outline of submissions within seven days of the conclusion of the Applicant’s case. Liberty to apply was granted, and the parties’ costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case were reserved, with the Application in a Case otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

13. Should the Second Respondent waive his privilege against self-exposure to penalty he must within seven (7) days of the conclusion of the Applicant’s case, file and serve:

(a) A Third Further Amended Defence;

(b) Any affidavit and other material on which he intends to rely; and

(c) An outline of submissions.

14. Liberty to apply.

15. The parties’ costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case be reserved.

16. The Application in a Case be otherwise 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.