//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1998] NSWIRComm 435
mixed. Leave granted to join second applicant; leave granted to file amended summons; leave granted to respondent to make further application regarding processing; application to set aside Notices to Produce...
The Industrial Relations Commission allowed a worker to add his company to his case against Matrix Telecommunications and to completely change his legal argument—from claiming he was an employee to claiming he was not. The Commission also required the worker to provide documents requested by Matrix, finding them relevant to the dispute. The Commission put off deciding who would pay legal costs until later, to see how much the scheduled hearing dates could still be used.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES
RICHARD JOHN PATTERSON v MATRIX TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED.
Application under s. 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.
1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to join R J Patterson &
Associates Pty Ltd as a second applicant to the proceedings;
2. Leave is granted to file an amended summons for relief in the
3. Leave is granted to the Respondent to make further application in
relation to the processing of the application in the light of the effects of the leave granted in pars 1. and 2. above;
4. The application to set aside the Respondent's Notices to Produce,
to the extent they remain contested by the Applicant, is denied;
5. A ruling on costs is deferred at this time; that will, of course, take
into account the extent to which the dates already set can be utilised.
In making the above orders, the following matters have been taken into account, but are not exclusive of the reasons for doing so:
* The material sought in the Notices to Produce appear relevant to
matters in issue, including the extent and nature of the relationship between the Applicants and Respondent; holidays; and mitigation.
* The time periods spanned by the documents called for are not
inappropriate in the light of the case pressed, including an extended time to take into account amounts received for work done in the 12 months termination period claimed.
* The second Applicant now added is the first Applicant's company
which he controls with his wife, that latter fact also being relevant to the ruling relating to Notices to Produce addressed to the first applicant's wife.
The first Applicant claims that all evidence has been filed by both Applicant and Respondent. However, even if that is correct, it would be anticipated that that filed by the Respondent was based on the grounds and reasons advanced to support the original summons for relief filed by the Applicant. I note, for instance, that ground no. 4 originally advanced by the (now) first Applicant was that "at all material times the Applicant was an employee of the Respondent". Ground no. 4 of the Amended Summons for Relief is that "the first Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent".
This Ruling with brief reasons is published now to enable the parties to consider their positions prior to the hearing dates of 3 and 4 September 1998. More complete reasons will be published if requested.
Richard John Patterson
Matrix Telecommunications Limited. [1998] NSWIRComm 435
Leave granted to join second applicant; leave granted to file amended summons; leave granted to respondent to make further application regarding processing; application to set aside Notices to Produce denied; costs deferred.