King v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

King v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2011] FCA 95

Citation:		King v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2011] FCA 95
Parties:		ROBYN KING v AUSTRALIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
File number(s):		NSD 43 of 2010
Judge:		KATZMANN J
Date of judgment:		8 February 2011
Catchwords:		PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – subpoena for production of documents – objection – scope – relevance.
Legislation:		Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 340, s 546
Cases cited:		Brand v Digi-Tech (Aust) Ltd [2001] NSWSC 425 GB (By His Tutor), FB v Western Sydney Area Health Service [2010] NSWSC 181 The Food Improvers Pty Ltd & Anor v BGR Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) (2006) 155 FCR 216 Santos Ltd v Pipelines Authority of South Australia (1996) 66 SASR 38
Date of hearing:	8 February 2011
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	17
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms S Ryan of Turner Freeman
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms J Sutherland of Blake Dawson

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 43 of 2010

BETWEEN:	ROBYN KING Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Respondent

JUDGE:	KATZMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Paragraph 1 (d) of the schedule to the subpoenas issued to the following persons is amended so as to limit the production of the documents referred to in it to documents made or generated from 8 October 2008:

(a)Dr Heba Mankarious;

(b)Dr Jane Elizabeth Thomson;

(c)Dr Martine Anne Walker;

(d)The Mosman Practice.

2.The notice of motion is otherwise dismissed.

3.Until further order, production of documents on subpoena to the above persons or entities is restricted to the applicant, the legal representatives of the parties and experts they retain for the purpose of the proceeding.  The applicant is to have first access.

4.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 43 of 2010

BETWEEN:	ROBYN KING Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Respondent

JUDGE:	KATZMANN J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Robyn King, alleges that the respondent (“API”) breached s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The substance of her complaint is that she has been the victim of workplace bullying and harassment, in particular, by her immediate supervisor. Amongst the orders she seeks are compensation under s 546 of the Act and damages for breach of contract and in tort. The loss and damage particularised in her statement of claim includes distress and anxiety. In its defence API denies that she is entitled to any relief or that she has suffered any loss or damage.

2. On 22 December 2010, at the request of API, the…