Balaev v University of Adelaide [2016] FCA 278
The applicant has not demonstrated the need for further discovery in the disputed categories; only the categories of documents consented to by the respondent will be further discovered, and the interlocutory application is otherwise dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Discovery Prior to Trial
- Outcome
- Application partially granted, partially dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['discovery' 'employment Termination' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'workplace Rights']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Discovery Prior to Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondent complied with discovery obligations under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.14' 'Whether further discovery should be ordered under r 20.21' 'Whether applicant demonstrated that additional documents are directly relevant to the issues']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant has not demonstrated the need for further discovery in the disputed categories; only the categories of documents consented to by the respondent will be further discovered, and the interlocutory application is otherwise dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application partially granted, partially dismissed
Orders
- ["The respondent provide further discovery in relation to specified categories of documents as described in the order, including communications between HR and English and Creative Writing staff concerning the applicant's employment, Workload Model 2015, SELTS forms and reports, documents relating to applicant's...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment