Callaghan, B. & Ors v Federated Clerks Union of Australia & Ors [1987] FCA 210

Callaghan, B. & Ors v Federated Clerks Union of Australia & Ors [1987] FCA 210

Although the respondents' complaint about relevance was essentially a question of law, the trial judge had a significant advantage because the trial had already proceeded extensively and related accounting evidence had been admitted without objection. Even if the relevance objection were seriously arguable, it would be inappropriate to delay the already protracted hearing by appeal proceedings about the width of discovery ordered by the judge intimately concerned with the issues. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Applications Under Ss.140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal From and Stay of a Further Discovery Order / Motion Before Spender J for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Discovery Order Made by Gray J on 26 March 1987
Outcome
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['further Discovery' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'relevance of Documents' "federated Clerks' Union Rules" 'sustentation Fees']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['further Discovery' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'relevance of Documents' "federated Clerks' Union Rules" 'sustentation Fees']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications Under Ss.140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal From and Stay of a Further Discovery Order / Motion Before Spender J for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Discovery Order Made by Gray J on 26 March 1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Gray J's further discovery order, limited on the hearing to paragraphs 1(f)-1(j)." 'Whether the disputed classes of documents were relevant to questions in issue in the proceedings.' 'Whether compliance with the discovery order would be onerous to the point of oppression.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents' complaint about relevance was essentially a question of law, the trial judge had a significant advantage because the trial had already proceeded extensively and related accounting evidence had been admitted without objection. Even if the relevance objection were seriously arguable, it would be inappropriate to delay the already protracted hearing by appeal proceedings about the width of discovery ordered by the judge intimately concerned with the issues. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.']