FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Poznan v State of Victoria [2014] FCA 1389 Citation: Poznan v State of Victoria [2014] FCA 1389 Parties: MILKA POZNAN v STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) File number: VID 171 of 2014 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 8 December 2014 Date of hearing: 8 December 2014 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr B Murray of Minter Ellison IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 171 of 2014 BETWEEN: MILKA POZNAN Applicant AND: STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 8 DECEMBER 2014 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Paragraph 2 of the orders made by Justice North on 1 August 2014 is set aside. 2. In paragraph 3 of the orders made by Justice North on 1 August 2014 the date 30 September 2014 is substituted with 28 February 2015. 3. In paragraph 4 of the orders made by Justice North on 1 August 2014 the date 31 October 2014 is substituted with 31 March 2015. 4. In paragraph 5 of the orders made by Justice North on 1 August 2014 the date 30 November 2014 is substituted with 20 April 2015. 5. The directions hearing is adjourned to 10.15 am on 27 April 2015. 6. The costs are reserved. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 171 of 2014 BETWEEN: MILKA POZNAN Applicant AND: STATE OF VICTORIA (DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 8 DECEMBER 2014 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By an order of the Court on 1 August 2014, the parties were directed to agree to a list of categories of discoverable documents. They have been largely successful in doing so, but several categories of documents remain in contention. 2 The parties jointly provided a letter to the Court dated 23 September 2014, which attached a document setting out the categories of discoverable documents which have been discussed between the parties, and indicating by strike-through font those which the applicant seeks but the respondent opposes. 3 Mr Murray, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, contended the documents in contention refer to events, both by date and subject matter, outside of the factual matrix relating to the applicant's termination, which is the subject of the proceedings. Consequently, said Mr Murray, those documents do not have sufficient relevance to the central issue in the case as the matter presently appears, and those categories should not be the subject of discovery at this stage. 4 The applicant is not presently represented by a lawyer. It may be that in the course of the trial some of the documents which she presently seeks in the contested categories may have sufficient relevance that it would be appropriate for the respondent to produce them. At present the documents in contention do not appear sufficiently related to the subject matter. But if the documents become relevant in the course of the trial, orders can be made to address the situation at that time. 5 Consequently, the documents which the respondent is obliged to disclose are those listed in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the document attached to the letter of 23 September 2014, excluding the contested categories which are struck out in the document. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate: Dated: 17 December 2014