Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Russel v Macquarie Bank Limited [2020] FCA 1332 Appeal from: Russel v Macquarie Bank Limited [2020] FCCA 869
File number: NSD 400 of 2020
Judgment of: THAWLEY J
Date of judgment: 17 September 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal disclosure orders made in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – extension of time granted – whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal refused – application for leave to appeal granted – appeal heard concurrently with application for leave – appeal allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – discovery not allowed unless declaration made under s 45(1) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) that discovery is in the interests of the administration of justice – primary judge acted on wrong principle in applying or failing to apply s 45(1) – disclosure order made under r 14.02 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – categories of documents ordered to be disclosed not sufficiently relevant to any question in the proceedings – appeal allowed – disclosure order set aside
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 12, 16, 21, 570 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) ss 3, 45 Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 14.02 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.13 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) s 45 Annual Holidays Act 1944 (NSW)
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Devine Marine Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 442 Fair Work Ombudsman v Transpetrol TM AS [2019] FCA 400 Finch v The Heat Group (No 3) [2017] FCA 64 Ford v La Forrest [2002] 2 Qd R 44 Fualau v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 11 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479 Gambaro v Mobycom Mobile Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 910 Hartnett Legal Services Pty Ltd v Ballantyne [2016] FCA 1116 Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 Linkhill Pty Ltd v Director, Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 240 FCR 578 Minogue v Williams (2000) 60 ALD 366 Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd [1996] 2 VR 34 Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Byrnes [1974] 1 NSWLR 27 Parker v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 133 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis Au Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 573 Russel v Macquarie Bank Limited [2020] FCCA 869 United States Tobacco Co v Minister for Consumer Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 520 WAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 399 WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2020) 378 ALR 585
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate