Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd - [2020] QIRC 70

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2020] QIRC 070
PARTIES:	Scott, Michael (Applicant) v Steritech Pty Ltd (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2019/190
PROCEEDING:	Application to lift a stay on a Form 29 Notice of Non-Party Disclosure
DELIVERED ON:	11 May 2020
HEARING DATES:	1 May 2020
MEMBER:	McLennan IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The stay on the Notice to Produce served on Steritech Pty Ltd on 26 March 2020 is lifted, with respect to the categories of documents referred to at numbers 1, 3, 5 - 8 at page 3 of the itemised ‘Schedule of documents’. 2. The Notice to Produce served on Steritech Pty Ltd on 26 March 2020 is varied, with respect to the categories of documents referred to at numbers 2 and 4 at page 3 of the itemised ‘Schedule of documents’. Such that it reads: 2. All documents evidencing or recording communications of analysis undertaken by Glenn Robertson of staffing resources, salaries and staffing structures for the Narangba plant from 1 March 2018 until 7 August 2018, with the personal details of other employees redacted. 4. All documents evidencing or recording communications between Glenn Robertson, Murray Lynch, Tony Collins, Paul Newman, John Irwin and Kym Morrison for the Budget Review Process for 2018 of Mr Robertson’s examination of the staff review (resources, structure, salaries) for the Narangba plant, with the personal details of other employees redacted. 3. Each party is to bear their own costs.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION TO LIFT A STAY ON A FORM 29 NOTICE OF NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE – objections to produce documents – where privilege and confidentiality at issue – where direct relevance is considered – where application is varied.
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 r 64B, r 64E, r 64G
APPEARANCES:	Mr M. Black, Counsel instructed by Mr H. Trotman, Solicitor of Queensland Workplace Law for Mr M. Scott, Applicant. Ms K. Morrison and Mr G. Robertson for Steritech Pty Ltd, Respondent. Ms B. Callaghan, Counsel directly instructed by Ms O. Steele for the Workers' Compensation Regulator, interested party.

Reasons for Decision

On 26 March 2020, Mr Michael Scott’s legal representative filed a Form 29 Notice of Non-Party Disclosure with the Industrial Registry.
The Form 29 Notice sought to compel his former employer, Steritech Pty Ltd, to produce various documents that Mr Scott requires for the future substantive Hearing of his Workers’ Compensation Appeal.
The Workers’ Compensation Regulator (‘the Regulator’) is Respondent in that matter. They attended this Hearing as an ‘interested party’.
Mr Scott contends that the documents held by Steritech Pty Ltd (‘the company’) are relevant to the question of whether the company’s decision to make his position redundant constituted reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. That question will be significant in determining his Workers’ Compensation Appeal.
The Tribunals Rules
By way of application under r 64G of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (‘the Tribunals Rules’), Mr Scott has sought to have that Form 29 Notice enforced. Under that rule,…

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.

Continue reading Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Scott v Steritech Pty Ltd [2020] QIRC 70
Case: [2020] QIRC 70
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Scott and Steritech Pty Ltd, focusing on the production of specific documents under a Form 29 notice. The application pertained to the lifting of a stay on the notice, which Steritech had previously contested on grounds of privilege and confidentiality. The court had to determine whether the documents in question were directly relevant to the proceedings and whether the privilege and confidentiality objections were valid. The case was heard in the Australian court, which was tasked with resolving these legal issues.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of privilege and confidentiality in relation to the documents sought. Steritech argued that the documents were protected by legal professional privilege and that their production would infringe on the confidentiality of the communications. Scott, on the other hand, contended that the documents were directly relevant to the proceedings and should be disclosed. The court had to assess the relevance of the documents and the strength of the privilege and confidentiality claims.

In its decision, the court examined the nature and content of the documents, finding that certain categories were indeed relevant to the case. The court ruled that the stay on the notice to produce could be lifted for specific categories of documents. However, the court also recognised the legitimate concerns regarding confidentiality and varied the notice to protect the personal details of other employees. Consequently, the court granted the application to lift the stay on the notice for certain documents while also modifying the notice to redact personal information. The court concluded that each party should bear their own costs.

The final orders of the court were to lift the stay on the Notice to Produce for specific document categories and to vary the notice to redact personal details. This decision allowed for the disclosure of certain documents while maintaining the confidentiality of personal information. The court's ruling aimed to balance the need for transparency in the proceedings with the protection of sensitive information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The stay on the Notice to Produce served on Steritech Pty Ltd on 26 March 2020 is lifted, with respect to the categories of documents referred to at numbers 1, 3, 5 - 8 at page 3 of the itemised ‘Schedule of documents’.

2. The Notice to Produce served on Steritech Pty Ltd on 26 March 2020 is varied, with respect to the categories of documents referred to at numbers 2 and 4 at page 3 of the itemised ‘Schedule of documents’. Such that it reads:

2. All documents evidencing or recording communications of analysis undertaken by Glenn Robertson of staffing resources, salaries and staffing structures for the Narangba plant from 1 March 2018 until 7 August 2018, with the personal details of other employees redacted.

4. All documents evidencing or recording communications between Glenn Robertson, Murray Lynch, Tony Collins, Paul Newman, John Irwin and Kym Morrison for the Budget Review Process for 2018 of Mr Robertson’s examination of the staff review (resources, structure, salaries) for the Narangba plant, with the personal details of other employees redacted.

3. Each party is to bear their own costs.

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.