Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1376

Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1376

The Particulars did not make a direct allusion to any recording or transcript, even if it was likely that one or both existed; an implication or inference from the precision of the quoted conversation was insufficient for r 20.31. The Court also declined to order production under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because no relevant procedural unfairness was apprehended at that point.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Division Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Tenth to Twelfth Respondents for Production of a Recording and Any Transcript of a Conversation
Outcome
The interlocutory application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['notice to Produce' 'production of Documents' 'document Mentioned in Pleading or Affidavit' 'further and Better Particulars' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth), R 20.31']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['notice to Produce' 'production of Documents' 'document Mentioned in Pleading or Affidavit' 'further and Better Particulars' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth), R 20.31']

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

Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Division Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Tenth to Twelfth Respondents for Production of a Recording and Any Transcript of a Conversation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a recording of a conversation, and any transcript of it, was "mentioned" in the applicant\'s pleading or particulars for the purposes of r 20.31 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the Court should order production under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to avoid procedural unfairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars did not make a direct allusion to any recording or transcript, even if it was likely that one or both existed; an implication or inference from the precision of the quoted conversation was insufficient for r 20.31. The Court also declined to order production under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) because no relevant procedural unfairness was apprehended at that point.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application of the tenth to twelfth Respondents dated 19 July 2019 be dismissed.']