Jack v CoreStaff NT Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 973

Jack v CoreStaff NT Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 973

CoreStaff NT’s application to set aside the applicants’ notice to produce is dismissed for the limited reason that, with respect to Mr Derek Gideon’s records and those of six additional employees already agreed to, the evidence does not exclude the reasonable possibility that relevant documents exist. The use of a notice to produce to assist in identifying group members in a representative proceeding is appropriate in the particular circumstances, especially where compliance with discovery has been shown to be unreliable for certain employees.

Parties
First Applicant: Alois Jack; Second Applicant: Peter Guli; Third Applicant: Asron Pora; Fourth Applicant: Natu Kulminok; Fifth Applicant: Mathias Buko; Sixth Applicant: Masol Waspol; Seventh Applicant: Michael Pandai; Eighth Applicant: Kunerd Heptol; Ninth Applicant: Bennie Ipai; Tenth Applicant: Puri Ani; Eleventh Applicant: Lucas Angur; Twelfth Applicant: Mende Korul; Thirteenth Applicant: Tim Omen; Fourteenth Applicant: Henao Nogo; Fifteenth Applicant: Sam Tonges; Sixteenth Applicant: Kaspar Jacob; Seventeenth Applicant: Kesi Lake; Eighteenth Applicant: Leroy Gillina; Nineteenth Applicant: Simon Mathias; Twentieth Applicant: Julius Dimara; Respondent: CoreStaff NT Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding (class Action), Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Notice to Produce
Outcome
Application to set aside notice to produce dismissed (in part); compliance with notice to produce required for Mr Derek Gideon and agreed former employees; costs in the cause, subject to further order.
Legal Topics
Discovery and Production of Documents, Notice to Produce, Representative Proceedings, Identification of Group Members
Practice and Procedure Employment Law Discovery and Production of Documents Notice to Produce Representative Proceedings Identification of Group Members

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alois Jack

First Applicant

Peter Guli

Second Applicant

Asron Pora

Third Applicant

Natu Kulminok

Fourth Applicant

Mathias Buko

Fifth Applicant

Masol Waspol

Sixth Applicant

Michael Pandai

Seventh Applicant

Kunerd Heptol

Eighth Applicant

Bennie Ipai

Ninth Applicant

Puri Ani

Tenth Applicant

Lucas Angur

Eleventh Applicant

Mende Korul

Twelfth Applicant

Tim Omen

Thirteenth Applicant

Henao Nogo

Fourteenth Applicant

Sam Tonges

Fifteenth Applicant

Kaspar Jacob

Sixteenth Applicant

Kesi Lake

Seventeenth Applicant

Leroy Gillina

Eighteenth Applicant

Simon Mathias

Nineteenth Applicant

Julius Dimara

Twentieth Applicant

CoreStaff NT Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding (class Action), Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice to produce should be set aside for lack of legitimate purpose
  2. 2 Whether discovery or further discovery would have been a more appropriate method to seek the documents
  3. 3 Whether the notice to produce sought documents of apparent relevance to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

CoreStaff NT’s application to set aside the applicants’ notice to produce is dismissed for the limited reason that, with respect to Mr Derek Gideon’s records and those of six additional employees already agreed to, the evidence does not exclude the reasonable possibility that relevant documents exist. The use of a notice to produce to assist in identifying group members in a representative proceeding is appropriate in the particular circumstances, especially where compliance with discovery has been shown to be unreliable for certain employees.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside notice to produce dismissed (in part); compliance with notice to produce required for Mr Derek Gideon and agreed former employees; costs in the cause, subject to further order.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the notice to produce dated 4 February 2020 be dismissed.
  • The respondent comply with the 4 February 2020 notice to produce in respect of production of the documents relating to Mr Derek Gideon, as well as those relating to former employees in respect of whom the respondent has already agreed to production of documents.