Federal Court of Australia

Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 692

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The time for compliance with order 1 of the orders made on 8 April 2026 is extended to 7 May 2026.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J

1    Mr Mirmehdi Mokhtari has brought proceedings in this Court against his former employer Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd. He is conducting the proceedings as a litigant in person. On 22 October 2025, orders were made for Piacentini & Son to provide discovery of certain categories of documents: Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1290. An affidavit of discovery as to those categories was provided. On 8 April 2026, I made orders for Piacentini & Son to provide discovery of certain further categories of documents by 30 April 2026: Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 464. On 28 April 2026, the solicitors for Piacentini & Son sought an extension of time for compliance with those further orders until 7 May 2026. The request was expressed in the following terms:

Our client is endeavouring to meet the imposed deadline, however they require a short extension. Compliance is taking longer than expected as a result of the Respondent's need to coordinate with multiple custodians including people who have left the business and Rio Tinto, in order to identify and collate all relevant documents.

We therefore write to request your consent to an extension of time for the Respondent to comply with the discovery orders, such that the new date would be 7 May 2026. Noting that the matter has not been programmed for hearing, we do not believe that the proposed extension will cause any prejudice to the conduct of the matter.

2    Mr Mokhtari responded on 29 April by email in the following terms:

Thank you for your email of 28 April 2026.

I do not consent to the requested extension.

3    The following day, the solicitors for Piacentini & Son lodged an interlocutory application seeking the proposed extension of time for compliance with the order. It was supported by an affidavit deposed by the chief financial officer of Piacentini & Son (Extension Affidavit).

4    Relevantly for present purposes, the Extension Affidavit deposed to the following matters:

(1)    Piacentini & Son 'has endeavoured to try and meet' the time for compliance but compliance had taken longer than anticipated;

(2)    'many staff…had worked on the project [on which Mr Mokhtari had been employed] and who may have been familiar with the discoverable document categories have since left their employment with [Piacentini & Son]' with the consequence that the existence and location of documents falling within the categories 'has taken considerable effort' to determine;

(3)    There has been a need to coordinate with 'multiple custodians of documents, including

former staff, its contractors and its client, to ascertain the existence and location of any documents falling within [the categories ordered]'

(4)    enquiries are ongoing and a short extension of one week was required to comply.

5    For some reason, the interlocutory application was not accepted for filing until well after 7 May 2026 by which time an affidavit of discovery (Discovery Affidavit) had been filed by Piacentini & Son in respect of the additional categories the subject of the orders made on 8 April 2026.

6    In the meantime, an email was sent by my associate to Mr Mokhtari in the following terms:

I refer to the above matter and the respondent's interlocutory application dated 30 April 2026.

Noting that further discovery in compliance with order 1 of the orders of Justice Colvin made on 8 April was given on 7 May 2026 and that Mr Mokhtari has not given any reason for not consenting to the application, if Mr Mohktari has any reason to object to the application he may provide brief submissions of no more than 3 pages in length by 5.00 pm AWST on 26 May 2026.

Subject to those submissions, the Court will determine the application on the papers.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

(original emphasis)

7    On 29 May 2026, Mr Mokhtari provided written submissions. By those submissions, he sought the following:

(1)    An order dismissing the interlocutory application for an extension of time;

(2)    An order that the Discovery Affidavit 'be removed from the file and struck out under r 29.03';

(3)    An order that Piacentini & Son pay Mr Mokhtari's costs of and occasioned by the application for an extension of time.

8    Much of Mr Mokhtari's written submissions is concerned with whether the Discovery Affidavit complies with the orders of the Court made on 8 April 2026. That is to say, Mr Mokhtari seeks to turn the application by Piacentini & Son for an extension of time for compliance into an application by him for orders to the effect that the Discovery Affidavit did not comply with the orders of 8 April 2026.

9    For the following reasons, the orders sought by Piacentini & Son should be made and the orders sought by Mr Mokhtari should be refused.

10    At the outset, I note that Mr Mokhtari identified no material prejudice to him occasioned by a delay of seven days in the provision of the required affidavit of discovery as to further discovery categories. The extension of time sought was short. The reasons for the extension were explained, albeit in general terms.

11    Aside from submissions as to why the Discovery Affidavit was alleged not to comply with orders (as to which see below), Mr Mokhtari's submissions as to why the extension for compliance of 7 days should not be granted are to the effect that Piacentini & Son had an obligation to keep records and the delay was caused by matters in its control, not by some form of 'external impediment'.

12    Further, Mr Mokhtari submits that no reasonable person could consent to the order sought without knowing, for each category of documents, the searches that have been carried out, how and where they were carried out, what was reasonably searched for, why it was done in that manner, why it was not found and why it took the time it did. He says that without such detail 'no fair assessment is possible'. He says that such information is required by the Federal Court Rules and by authority.

13    The issue for the Court on the interlocutory application is whether there should be a short of extension of time to comply. That is a separate question to whether the Discovery Affidavit that has now been filed provides proper discovery as required. The provision of the Rules to which Mr Mokhtari refers in support of his submissions as to what Piacentini & Son was required to show by its Extension Affidavit imposes no requirement of the kind to which he refers as a condition of seeking an extension of time. Mr Mokhtari does not identify any authority that would indicate that the Extension Affidavit should depose to such matters in support of an application for an extension of the time for compliance of the kind advance by Piacentini & Son.

14    When regard is had to the principles to be applied and in the absence of any identified prejudice to Mr Mokhtari, the reasons advanced by Mr Mohktari do not justify his refusal to agree to the short extension of time sought by Piacentini & Son. Those principles concern the proper approach to matters of case management. They have been explained to Mr Mokhtari. In my reasons in Mokhtari (No 3), I said:

The rules of procedure are a means to an end. They serve the purpose of ensuring that the proceedings are conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties. The Court seeks to supervise the procedural steps in a way that allows for a just resolution of the merits of the substantive claims. The Court is required to resolve cases quickly and fairly. All litigants have an obligation to assist the Court in doing so: see s 37M and s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Further, for the purpose of advancing those objectives, the Court has power to waive or vary any provision in the Rules in their application to a particular proceeding: see s 37P.

15    Contrary to his submission, Mr Mokhtari's refusal to agree to the extension sought was plainly unreasonable. It reflected a posture of technicality which is inconsistent with his obligations as a litigant seeking the assistance of the Court.

16    Mr Mokhtari's additional submission that the failure to meet the deadline as ordered 'did not demonstrate appropriate respect for the Court's orders or the proper and efficient management of the proceeding, and did not give sufficient priority to timely compliance' is without foundation. The extension sought was only for 7 days. The reason for the short extension was adequately explained to any reasonable litigant. It is unreasonable to expect an explanation with the detail proposed by Mr Mokhtari for such a short extension. The extension was sought before the time expired and only after a request for an extension was made to Mr Mokhtari and refused. The extension sought could not be said to interfere in any meaningful way with the proper and efficient conduct of the proceeding. On the contrary, the refusal to agree to the extension had that consequence in necessitating the bringing of an application that ought not have been required and which has burdened the Court in preparing these reasons.

17    In Mokhtari (No 3), I observed that Mr Mokhtari's approach to the discovery issues the subject of those reasons was not the only example of him persisting in requiring the Court to make a determination about a matter even though it has little or no practical bearing on the fairness of the process. I consider his refusal to agree to the extension sought in the present instance to be a further example of such conduct.

18    Otherwise, as I have mentioned, Mr Mokhtari seeks to turn the issue as to whether there should be an extension of time for compliance into an adjudication as to whether the Discovery Affidavit that has been provided complies with the order. He maintains that the affidavit provides insufficient evidence of the nature and extent of inquiries made in complying with the orders requiring discovery as to the additional categories as ordered on 8 April 2026. The Discovery Affidavit deposes in the following terms concerning those inquiries:

I have made all reasonable enquiries as to the existence and location of the documents specified in the [orders of 8 April 2026].

To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, except as described below, there are no documents specified in the [orders] that are or have been in [Piacentini & Son's] control, other than the documents specified in this list of documents.

19    Mr Mohktari says that there was an obligation to identify 'what search was undertaken, by whom, where, or how'. He says that the obligation arose under r 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules and the Court's Central Practice Note (CPN-1). It is not necessary to consider whether, in the usual case, there is an obligation of the kind asserted by Mr Mokhtari because his submissions fail to have regard to the fact that the additional discovery that has been ordered in these proceedings by reference to particular categories has been the subject of express orders as to how that discovery would be provided. This is because Mr Mokhtari had sought discovery orders with much detail as to what was required by way of compliance. I declined to make those orders. In the result, the orders made were as follows (see Mokhtari (No 2)):

Discovery in accordance with these orders shall be given by providing:

(a)     a list of documents specifying by adequate description the documents discovered noting that, where appropriate, bundles may be described;

(b)     a separate list of known documents within the categories that were but are no longer in the control of the party;

(c)     a separate list of each document in the party's control that is within the categories for which privilege from production is claimed (and the grounds of the privilege);

(d)     an affidavit verifying that the deponent:

(i)     in the case of the respondent, is authorised to make the affidavit;

(ii)     has made reasonable inquiries as to the existence and location of the documents specified in this order;

(iii)     believes that the lists comply with this order;

(iv)     believes that there is a proper basis to make the claims to privilege and stating in general terms the basis for the claims; and

(e)     electronic copies of all documents referred to in the list referred to in order 3(a).

20    The order made on 8 April 2026 expressly provided for the further categories to be provided in accordance with the above orders. The purpose of those orders was to prevent the continuation of Mr Moktari's insistence upon a highly detailed and technical form of compliance with discovery orders and to avoid unnecessary costs.

21    For those reasons, I am not persuaded that the matters raised by Mr Mokhtari provide a basis for the making of the orders sought by him.

22    Finally, if I had been persuaded that there was some issue properly raised as to compliance with the discovery orders of 8 April 2026 (which I am not) then I would not have been persuaded that it was appropriate to deal with those matters on the present interlocutory application which is being dealt with on the papers on the basis that it concerns the time for compliance with those orders. I would have required Mr Mokhtari to file his own interlocutory application so that there was a fair opportunity to Piacentini & Son to respond. However, for the reasons I have given, no purpose would be served in providing for the filing of any such application because the matters raised by Mr Mokhtari concerning whether the Discovery Affidavit complies with the requirements of the orders of 8 April 2026 are without merit.

23    As to costs, as I have mentioned, Mr Mokhtari sought an order for costs to be paid by Piacentini & Son. Having regard to the subject matter, there is a need to bring to account the terms of s 570 of the Fair Work Act. In any event, for reasons that have been given, there was no merit in any of the matters raised by Mr Mokhtari and consequently no basis upon which he could obtain a costs order (noting that it is difficult to see what costs might be the subject of any such order in circumstances where Mr Mokhtari is conducting the proceedings in person).

24    Otherwise, the interlocutory application brought by Piacentini & Son did not seek any costs order.

Associate:

Dated:    4 June 2026