Australia, Aug. 4 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 4:

1. The substantive proceedings in this matter concern an application under s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (the Act) brought by Dr Avinash Suryawanshi (the Applicant), a former employee of the Sydney Local Health District (the Respondent to these proceedings, the Health Secretary, being the nominal Respondent in such matters), filed on 2 April 2025 alleging his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. In addition, the Applicant filed an amended application for relief from alleged victimisation on 3 April 2025, pursuant to s 213 of the Act.

2. On 28 May 2025, the Applicant filed a summons for production addressed to the Respondent, seeking some 18 categories of documents (the Summons).

3. On 2 June 2025 the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking Orders that the Summons "be wholly set aside or in part as determined by the Commission" (the Motion).

4. On 23 June 2025 I made directions for the filing and service of evidence and an outline of submissions, and the Motion was listed for hearing before me on 2 July 2025.

5. During the course of the hearing on 2 July 2025 the Respondent confirmed it did not press its objection to categories 5 and 13 on the basis that it had no documents to produce. The parties were otherwise able to reach agreement in relation to categories 7 to 12 and 14 to 18 of the Summons. On this basis the Respondent did not press its objection to the agreed categories.

6. That left categories 1 to 4 and 6 of the Summons as the only matters to be determined (the Disputed Categories). This decision determines the objection to the Disputed Categories.

7. The Respondent relied upon three central contentions in support of its contention that paragraphs 1 to 4 and 6 of the Summons ought be set aside, namely the documents sought:

1) Lack a legitimate forensic purpose and are not relevant to the issues in the current proceedings.

2) Are being used as a means of determining whether a case exists or are being used as a "fishing expedition"; and

3) Are otherwise oppressive to the Respondent.

8. In support of those contentions the Respondent relied upon:

1) Written submissions dated 27 June 2025 (the RSUB), which were elaborated upon orally at the hearing; and

2) An affidavit of Ms Juliette Rex, an Employee Relations Manager, employed at Sydney Local Health District, dated 20 June 2025.

9. The Applicant pressed each of the Disputed Categories, and in that connection relied upon:

1) An Outline of Written Submissions dated 25 June 2025 (the ASUB), expanded upon orally at the hearing; and

2) An affidavit of Layla Cachalia, the solicitor for the Applicant with day-to-day carriage of this proceeding (under supervision), affirmed on 25 June 2025, that annexed some correspondence and otherwise set out some matters of fact said by the Applicant to be relevant to the exercise of my discretion in determining the issues on the Motion.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197d421c97ca7f4564ca004a)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.