Rooney v AGL Energy Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rooney v AGL Energy Limited [2019] FCA 2157

File number:

VID 1024 of 2017

Judge:

SNADEN J

Date of judgment:

19 December 2019

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – subpoena – objection to inspection of documents produced – whether inspection would contravene s 588 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (Vic) – objection dismissed

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (Vic)

Cases cited:

Fletcher v Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board  [2012] FCA 1513

Victoria v Intralot Australia Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 358

Date of hearing:

17 December 2019

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

Fair Work Division

National Practice Area:

Employment & Industrial Relations

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

14

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr A F Solomon-Bridge

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Holding Redlich

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms R Davern-Nelson

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

VID 1024 of 2017

BETWEEN:

HELEN MARREE ROONEY

Applicant

AND:

AGL ENERGY LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE:	SNADEN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 DECEMBER 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Mr Brennan’s objection to the uplift and inspection of documents that he has produced under subpoena is dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SNADEN J:

1. Before the court is an objection raised in the present matter by a non-party, Mr Andrew Brennan, to the inspection of documents that he has produced to the court in answer to a subpoena that was addressed to him and issued at the request of the respondent (hereafter, the “Subpoena”).

2. Mr Brennan’s objection—the particulars of which are explored below—was contained within correspondence dated 22 October 2019 that he addressed to the court in answer to the Subpoena.  At the request of the respondent, a registrar of the court referred the objection for determination by a judge.  To that end, a hearing was scheduled for and conducted on Tuesday, 17 December 2019.  Mr Brennan did not attend that hearing but indicated that he did not wish to elaborate upon his objection beyond what was said within his 22 October correspondence.  After hearing from the parties, I dismissed Mr Brennan’s objection and indicated that I would publish brief, written reasons for doing so.

3. Mr Brennan is a psychologist.  The applicant, Ms Rooney, is one of his clients.  He has sworn an affidavit that Ms Rooney intends to read at the trial of this matter, to which are annexed two expert reports that pertain to his treatment of the applicant; or, more specifically, to his assessment of her mental health (hereafter, the “Expert Reports”).  That evidence is apparently intended to assist the applicant to establish the loss that she says that she has suffered in consequence of various statutory wrongs that, by this proceeding, she alleges that the respondent has visited upon her.

4. Amongst other things, the Subpoena required that Mr Brennan produce to the court:

   All records of whatever description (whether kept…