Webster v Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1236

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Webster v Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1236

File number(s): SYG 793 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment: 4 August 2025

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW- practice and procedure – application for an order under s 176 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that the respondents give discovery by disclosing documents that fall within specified categories of documents – whether categories identify documents relevant to an issue in the proceeding – whether to the extent the categories identify such documents their production ought to be sought by notice to produce rather than by discovery – application dismissed.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340(1), 341(1)(c)(ii)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 176

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 16.16

Cases cited:
Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v CFMEU & Ors (No.5) [2018] FCCA 1100

Doherty v Prospa Advance Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 391

Fraser v State of Victoria (Secretary, Department of Education) [2025] FedCFamC2G 697

Hartnett Legal Services Pty Ltd v Ballantyne [2016] FCA 1116

Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 268

Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102

Thomas & Ors v SMP (International) & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 870

Division: Fair Work

Number of paragraphs: 20

Date of hearing: 31 July 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Pen

Solicitor for the Applicant: Worklawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms T Wong

Solicitor for the Respondents: Workplace Law
ORDERS

SYG 793 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS ROBYN WEBSTER

Applicant

AND:
GRUMPY SAILOR CREATIVE PTY LTD

First Respondent

JAMES BOYCE

Second Respondent

CHARLIE HERBERT

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application for a declaration under s 176 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

The applicant, Ms Webster, applies for a declaration pursuant to s 176 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFC Act) that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that the respondents give discovery, by disclosing documents that fall within the categories of…

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 Webster v Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Webster v Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1236
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1236
Decision Date: 4 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Webster v Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd (No 2), the applicant, Ms Webster, sought an order for discovery of documents from the respondents, Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd and two of its employees, pursuant to section 176 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). The application arose in the context of a proceeding where Ms Webster alleged that Grumpy Sailor Creative Pty Ltd took adverse action against her, including termination of her employment, in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The specific legal issues before the court were whether the categories of documents identified by Ms Webster were relevant to issues in the proceeding and whether the production of such documents should be sought by notice to produce rather than by discovery.

The court considered the nature and relevance of the document categories to the issues in the proceeding. It was established that the categories related to meetings, conversations, and complaints that could potentially support or refute Ms Webster's claims of adverse action and the reasons for her termination. The court assessed whether these categories identified documents relevant to the proceeding and deliberated on whether the discovery process was appropriate or if a notice to produce would suffice. The court also noted that the relevance and admissibility of the documents would ultimately be determined in the context of the broader proceeding. Given these considerations, the court decided to dismiss the application for discovery, finding that the categories identified by Ms Webster did not sufficiently justify the broad scope of discovery sought. Instead, the court indicated that specific and narrowly tailored requests for documents should be made through notice to produce.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for discovery and directed that any relevant documents should be sought through a notice to produce, ensuring a more focused and efficient approach to the discovery process. This decision was based on the court's assessment that the broad categories proposed by Ms Webster did not meet the threshold for compelling discovery and that a more targeted approach was appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

I heard the application for discovery on the morning of 31 July 2025, at the conclusion of which I reserved my judgment, and listed the matter for judgment at 2.15 pm on 1 August 2025. At that time, I pronounced my order, noting that, although I had completed a draft of my reasons for pronouncing the order, I required further time to bring the draft into publishable form. These reasons for judgment are the final form of the draft reasons for judgment on the basis of which I pronounced my order on 1 August 2025. For ease of expression, I have not altered the draft to reflect the fact that these reasons for judgment will be published after I pronounce my order.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The application for discovery is made in a proceeding in which Ms Webster alleges the first respondent (GSC) took adverse action against her on five occasions, the penultimate occasion being on 30 November 2023, when GSC informed Ms Webster of an upcoming performance review, and the last occasion being on 10 January 2024, when GSC terminated Ms Webster’s employment. Ms Webster alleges GSC took the adverse action because she had exercised workplace rights within the meaning of s 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), and in so doing, GSC contravened s 340(1) of the FW Act. Ms Webster also alleges that the second and third respondents were involved in GSC’s contraventions of s 340(1). In their response, in addition to putting a number of Ms Webster’s allegations in issue, the respondents allege, among other things, that the substantive and operative reasons for GSC’s dismissal of Ms Webster’s employment were that :(a)GSC lost trust and confidence in Ms Webster to be professional and act in the best interests of her employer; (b)GSC had received negative feedback about Ms Webster’s conduct and performance from external stakeholders and other employees; (c)Ms Webster disclosed planning and budget issues faced by GSC to a client without authorisation from GSC;(d)Ms Webster had spoken to external stakeholders and other employees about the respondents in a disparaging manner. On 11 December 2024 directions were made for the filing of evidence. Ms Webster filer her affidavit in chief on 28 February 2025; and on 11 April 2025 the respondents filed affidavits made by each of the second and third respondents, and by Ms Rata, the executive producer of GSC. Ms Webster filed her evidence in reply on 26 May 2025. On 4 June 2025, Judge Doust, to whom the matter has been docketed, set the matter down for hearing for three days commencing on 15 September 2025; and her Honour made a number of pretrial directions.THE CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS Ms Webster, in her counsel’s written submissions, classifies the categories of documents for which she seeks discovery into the following groups:(a)Category 1, being documents recording the contents of thirteen meetings or conversations that are referred to in the affidavits of the third respondent, Ms Herbert, or of the second respondent, Mr Boyce.(b)Categories 2, 3, 4 and 6, being documents recording complaints and feedback regarding Ms Webster to which Mr Boyce, Ms Herbert, and Ms Rata refer in their affidavits.(c)Categories 7 and 10, which identify particular documents. (Category 10 is no longer an issue.)PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

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.

File number(s):	SYG 793 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
Date of judgment:	4 August 2025
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW- practice and procedure – application for an order under s 176 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that the respondents give discovery by disclosing documents that fall within specified categories of documents – whether categories identify documents relevant to an issue in the proceeding – whether to the extent the categories identify such documents their production ought to be sought by notice to produce rather than by discovery – application dismissed.
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340(1), 341(1)(c)(ii) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 176 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 16.16
Cases cited:	Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v CFMEU & Ors (No.5) [2018] FCCA 1100 Doherty v Prospa Advance Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 391 Fraser v State of Victoria (Secretary, Department of Education) [2025] FedCFamC2G 697 Hartnett Legal Services Pty Ltd v Ballantyne [2016] FCA 1116 Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 268 Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102 Thomas & Ors v SMP (International) & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 870
Division:	Fair Work
Number of paragraphs:	20
Date of hearing:	31 July 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Pen
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Worklawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	Ms T Wong
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Workplace Law

SYG 793 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS ROBYN WEBSTER Applicant
AND:	GRUMPY SAILOR CREATIVE PTY LTD First Respondent JAMES BOYCE Second Respondent CHARLIE HERBERT Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2025