Balaev v University of Adelaide [2016] FCA 278

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.

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Discovery Prior to Trial

  1. 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...