SC v Integroe Partners Pty Ltd

Legislation Cited: Nil.

Cases Cited: Nil.

Texts Cited: Nil.

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Plaintiff – SC
Defendant – Integroe Partners Pty Ltd

Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff (Applicant) – Mr Capsanis, J. (Solicitor)
Defendant (Respondent) – Mr Philips, S.
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (Applicant) – J P Capsanis & Co Lawyers
Defendant (Respondent) – Wotton Kearney

File Number(s): 2023/00459576

Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff to set aside a subpoena for production which passed under the seal of the Court on 27 June 2025. The subpoena for production was issued to the Proper Officer of Ernst & Young at 200 George Street, Sydney. The subpoena required the production of the following:

“A complete copy of the personnel file held in relation to [the plaintiff] from the date of commencement of employment including but not limited to job application forms and resumes, contracts of employment, performance reviews, requests for leave, remuneration, records of all annual leave, personal leave and all leave records for the duration of her employment, records of training courses attended by the plaintiff and any internal memorandums[sic], emails, or notes regarding any complaints or disciplinary action involving the plaintiff.”

I should point out to the defendant’s solicitor that the plural of memorandum is memoranda.

2. The subpoena has been answered by the company to which it is addressed, and the addressee of the subpoena has taken no objection to providing the documents required. The documents are entirely relevant. In a statement of particulars filed on 13 December 2024, the plaintiff alleges that she is suffering from a major depressive disorder with anxiety, with anxious distress and provides a differential diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Inter alia, the plaintiff alleges severe headaches, decline in energy level, weight gain, changes in personality and an inability to work “at times”.

3. The particulars do not make any statement as to economic loss. However, the statement itself contains very little detail. For example, under the heading “Particulars Out-of-pocket Expenses” the document says this:

“The plaintiff claims all out-of-pocket expenses both paid and unpaid to date to be provided to the defendant in due course.”

4. Under the heading of “Particulars of Any Other Amounts Claimed” is this:

“The plaintiff claims the cost of future treatment including consulting specialists, general practitioners, allied health professionals, medication and reports, the cost of which will be provided to the defendant in due course.”

5. Only one document supports that statement of particulars, a report of Dr Sathish Dayalan, a forensic psychiatrist, who appears to have been qualified by the plaintiff’s solicitor. In [5] of that report the psychiatrist said this:

“[The plaintiff] is a 53 year old married woman with two sons aged 17 years and 14 years. She lived with her husband and two children in their residence in [suburb redacted]. She worked as a technology officer in a global accounting company.”

6. The psychiatrist discussed the plaintiff’s current functioning in [31] to [36]. The last of those paragraphs is this:

“The concentration deficits and irritability impacted on her work. As noted earlier, [the plaintiff] had a highly responsible job and was the main income provider for the family. She often worked late into the night. She had been unable to work on some days when she was distressed by her son’s experiences and the impact on his health. She had taken two months of leave when she learnt about what happened to [her son]. She avoided travelling for work given her anxiety regarding [her son].”

7. The defendant requested particulars on 19 February 2025. A reply was provided on 17 June 2025. The ninth request was this:

“Specify the nature of the ‘interruption to career and family relationships’ the plaintiff alleges, occurred.”

8. The reply commences thus:

“As to career, the plaintiff was unable to pursue career and promotion opportunities such as a partner path or a new company role she would normally have tried for as [her son] needed a high degree of care and was the plaintiff’s first priority because he was so sick with PTSD and suffered a major depressive incident following his treatment and who carried this weight along for four plus years and still needs a high degree of care because of the school related abuse he suffered and went undisclosed.”

9. I should point out that there is no medical evidence before me to suggest that the son suffered from any post-traumatic stress disorder. Because there is no medical evidence concerning the son’s condition, such led the defendant on 13 August 2025 to make a detailed request for the plaintiff’s economic loss claim and that letter has not been answered at all. Bearing in mind the issues raised by the plaintiff in the particulars filed and the particulars delivered, the plaintiff’s employment records are completely necessary to ascertain what her career path may have been and, as I have pointed out, there is no suggestion by the addressee of the subpoena that the request was oppressive for it to answer because it had provided the documents to the Court.

10. The subpoena has a valid forensic purpose integral to a claim which essentially is a claim for personal injury.

11. For those reasons the notice of motion is dismissed. The plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs of the notice of motion.

**********