Background
Colin Sharpin, a Qantas employee, brought Fair Work Act proceedings alleging that Qantas contravened its enterprise agreement. He sought declarations, compensation and penalties. Qantas defended the claim in part by alleging that Mr Sharpin was not eligible for a benefit under its Loss of Licence Insurance Plan because he had failed to disclose medically significant conditions as required by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth).
Qantas sought non-standard discovery of documents recording illnesses, injuries, infirmities, psychological states, addiction or dependence experienced by Mr Sharpin for more than seven days between 1 January 2018 and 20 August 2024. Mr Sharpin had already agreed to discover documents recording medical diagnoses, but opposed the broader category as irrelevant, oppressive and an impermissible fishing exercise.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Collier granted Qantas’s amended interlocutory application. The Court ordered Mr Sharpin to give discovery of the requested broader category by 21 October 2026 and to produce the documents electronically by 28 October 2026, subject to legal professional privilege.
The Court held that the request concerned a live and potentially determinative pleaded issue: whether Mr Sharpin had, knew of, and failed to disclose medically significant conditions before July 2023. Qantas had a sufficient evidentiary foundation for that issue, including material referring to anxiety, sleeplessness, exhaustion, medication and earlier symptoms. The Court did not decide whether symptoms are themselves medically significant conditions under the regulations; that substantive question remains for trial. But symptom records could be relevant evidence of an underlying condition and of Mr Sharpin’s knowledge.
The Court also held that the pre-existing discovery of medical-practitioner records and diagnosis documents was not an adequate substitute, because relevant evidence of awareness might appear in insurance documents, personal records or communications outside formal medical files. The seven-day limitation narrowed the category, and Mr Sharpin had not provided evidence showing that compliance would be disproportionately burdensome. Costs were reserved.
Key Takeaways
- Discovery may extend beyond formal diagnoses where records of symptoms or personal communications may bear on a pleaded issue of knowledge and timing.
- A court need not resolve the ultimate merits of a regulatory-interpretation dispute when deciding an interlocutory discovery application.
- A party resisting discovery as oppressive should provide evidence of the anticipated search burden, cost or document volume.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s willingness to order targeted but broad non-standard discovery when a pleaded defence is supported by some evidence and may determine the proceeding. It also confirms that discovery is not confined to documents already known to support the requesting party’s case.
For employment and aviation-related disputes, the ruling highlights that evidence bearing on an employee’s awareness of a health condition may reach beyond clinical records, while leaving the ultimate meaning and application of aviation medical-disclosure obligations for trial.