Woodsford v Range International Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Woodsford v Range International Limited [2018] FCA 1007

File number:

NSD 87 of 2018

Judge:

PERRAM J

Date of judgment:

13 June 2018

Date of publication of reasons:

4 July 2018

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for separate questions – where proposed separate questions concern geographical scope of claims under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for particulars – whether proper request for particulars

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – notice to set aside notice to produce – whether legitimate forensic purpose – whether notices drawn too broadly

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 34, 90, 323, 340, 341, 351, 542, 550

Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) reg 1.15F(4)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.35, 30.01

Cases cited:

Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier [2012] FCA 359

Tepko Pty Limited v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; 206 CLR 1

Date of hearing:

13 June 2018

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Employment & Industrial Relations

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

31

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr T Brennan

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd

Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:

Mr M Seck

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:

Ashurst Australia

ORDERS

NSD 87 of 2018

BETWEEN:

RACHELLE LEA WOODSFORD

Applicant

AND:

RANGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (ACN 611 998 200)

First Respondent

WILLIAM KOECK

Second Respondent

JONATHAN GUYETT

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 JUNE 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Prayers 1 and 2 of the First and Second Respondents’ interlocutory application filed on 24 April 2018 be dismissed.

2.The Applicant provide a response to paragraph 7 of the First and Second Respondents’ request for further and better particulars dated 26 March 2018.

3.The Notice to Produce dated 7 March 2018 be set aside.

4.The Notice to Produce dated 14 March 2018 be set aside.

5.Costs of the First and Second Respondents’ interlocutory applications filed on 13 April 2018 and 24 April 2018 be costs in the cause.

6.The matter be listed for a further case management hearing on 20 June 2018.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J:

1. On 13 June 2018 I made orders disposing of two interlocutory applications brought by the First and Second Respondents.  These are my reasons for making those orders.

   Separate Question Issues

2. Prayers 1 and 2 of the First and Second Respondents’ interlocutory application filed 24 April 2018 sought the stating of a series of separate questions (and thereafter their answering) pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). They sought to have determined in advance of any trial the question of whether the Applicant’s claims against the First and Second Respondents are sufficiently within the geographical scope of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) to allow her claims made under that Act to be maintained.

3. The Applicant’s proceeding in this Court…