Tran v Macquarie University - [2019] FCCA 1467

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRAN v MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

[2019] FCCA 1467

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discovery – matter set down for hearing – further application for discovery after initial application refused – whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to allow the application – application refused.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) s.45

Cases cited:

Abrahams v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) (2007) 210 FLR 314

Vanden Driesden v Edith Cowan University (2012) 226 IR 452

Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] FCCA 1091

Applicant:

HIEN MINH THI TRAN

Respondent:

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

File Number:

SYG 3084 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Humphreys

Hearing date:

22 May 2019

Date of Last Submission:

22 May 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

30 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Doust

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Hall Payne Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Brotherson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

HWL Ebsworth

ORDERS

The application for discovery is dismissed.
Costs in the application are reserved.

DATE OF ORDERS: 30 May 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

SYG 3084 of 2017

HIEN MINH THI TRAN

Applicant

And

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Hi Minh Thi Tran commenced proceedings in this Court on 5 October 2017, seeking relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging she was subject to adverse work action which resulted in her being made redundant rather than, as it was obligated to do under its Enterprise Agreement, seek to redeploy her
The matter is listed for hearing for four days in early July 2019 before myself. This is some 5 weeks away.
On 20 February 2019, Street J made a number of orders to ready the matter for hearing. They included the applicant to file all evidence by 27 March 2019, the respondent to file all evidence by 17 April 2019, written submissions and evidence in reply by the applicant by 1 May 2019 and any similar materials by 15 May 2019.
Critically, Street J declined to order discovery, ruling that:
This Court does not ordinarily order discovery in matters under the Fair Work Act 2009 and in light of the above orders the Court is not satisfied that any discovery order is necessary.
Somewhat surprisingly, on 13 May 2019, the applicant filed an application in a case seeking discovery detailing 20 separate and expansive areas. The list includes such items as, for the calendar years 2010-2015, the number of help desk tickets dealt with by the applicant.

The Relevant Law

The relevant law has been most helpfully set out by Kendall J in Vinden v Wrong Fuel Rescue Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] FCCA 1091 (“Vinden”).
The starting point is s 45(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) ("the Act”) which states that:
Interrogatories and discovery are not allowed in relation to proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia unless the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge declares…

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 Tran v Macquarie University

Details

AGLC: Tran v MACQUARIE University [2019] FCCA 1467
Case: [2019] FCCA 1467
Decision Date: 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Tran v Macquarie University*, the applicant sought further discovery from the respondent after an initial application for discovery had been refused. The matter was set down for hearing.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the applicant's further application for discovery, notwithstanding the prior refusal.

Judge Humphreys considered the principles governing applications for further discovery, particularly in circumstances where an initial request has already been denied. The Court applied the overarching principle that discovery is a process to facilitate the fair and efficient administration of justice. In this instance, the Court found that allowing the further application would not serve the interests of justice and therefore refused the application.

Orders