United Voice v Accolade Wines Australia Limited [2013] FCA 285

United Voice v Accolade Wines Australia Limited [2013] FCA 285

The applicants did not establish the necessary reasonable belief required by r 7.23; there was no evidence of subjective belief regarding an antecedent decision nor evidence that would make such belief objectively reasonable. The application, as recast, sought documents relating to unidentified decisions not supported by evidence. The application amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition and did not meet the threshold for preliminary discovery under the Rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application for Preliminary Discovery
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'discovery Obligations' 'consultation Under Awards and Enterprise Agreements' 'industrial Instruments' 'federal Court Procedure']
['employment Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'discovery Obligations' 'consultation Under Awards and Enterprise Agreements' 'industrial Instruments' 'federal Court Procedure']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Judgment on Application for Preliminary Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective applicants have satisfied the requirements of r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for preliminary discovery' 'Whether the beliefs of union officials can be imputed to the unions' 'Whether there was a reasonable belief that documents relevant to a right to relief existed and were in the control of the respondent' "Whether the request for discovery was a 'fishing expedition'"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not establish the necessary reasonable belief required by r 7.23; there was no evidence of subjective belief regarding an antecedent decision nor evidence that would make such belief objectively reasonable. The application, as recast, sought documents relating to unidentified decisions not supported by evidence. The application amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition and did not meet the threshold for preliminary discovery under the Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The prospective applicants pay the prospective respondent's costs of the application."]