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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCCA 1934
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.