Attard v Hore

[2002] QSC 437

Transcript of Proceedings

Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.

REVISED COPIES ISSUED
State Reporting Bureau

[2002] QSC 437	Date: 3 September, 2002
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DUTNEY J
Mackay Registry No S30 of 2002
LORETTA KAY ATTARD	Plaintiff
and
BENJAMIN PETER HORE	First Defendant
and
QBE INSURANCE LIMITED	Second Defendant
ROCKHAMPTON ..DATE 30/08/2002
ORDER

1

30082002 T8-9/RAP09 M/T ROK2/2002 (Dutney J)

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the defendants in a	1
accident for disclosure of the plaintiff's Centrelink file.
personal injuries action arising out of a motor vehicle behalf of the plaintiff, disclose that there is a claim for

10

economic loss not discounted as the result of any residual
earning capacity.

The material filed on behalf of the defendants in support of their application discloses that in order to obtain either

20

parenting or New Start allowances from Centrelink, information
that is relevant to working capacity has to be disclosed. It
is thus said that the material contained on the file would be

directly relevant to an issue in the trial.

30

The plaintiff resists the application on the basis, firstly, that the Centrelink file is not in the possession or under the control of the plaintiff. I have been referred to a decision of Robertson DCJ in Erskine v McDowell (2001) QDC 192, in which his Honour, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, reaches the

40

conclusion that the Centrelink file was not in the power or
control of the plaintiff.

The case is somewhat different from the present one because there was no argument in that case as to the relevance of the

50

material in the file. It was a case of a de facto property
dispute in which the existence of a de facto relationship was
conceded but there was a debate about the extent of the

relationship and its duration. Because of the information

ORDER

2  60

30082002 T8-9/RAP09 M/T ROK2/2002 (Dutney J)

supplied to Centrelink, the file would have, in that case,	1
contained information which identified, at least generally, the period during which the parties claim to have been in the de facto relationship.

10

Notwithstanding that the file was not in the possession or control of the parties, Robertson DCJ ordered the defendant to obtain copies of the file under the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently if a request is made by the Centrelink customer, a copy of the file will be provided under that

20

legislation without any fee being payable. His Honour
exercised power under rule 223.4(b) or, alternatively, rule

367 to make the orders which he did.

The second basis of the objection by the plaintiff in this

30

case is that the file is not directly relevant. It is said
that the provisions of the relevant legislation require
disclosure of all information concerning work history and
medical conditions as a condition of being able to institute

the proceedings, and that is certainly right.

40

It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that to require this further step, that is the disclosure of Centrelink file, would be an unwarranted intrusion into the civil liberties of the plaintiff.

50

I am not persuaded that the civil liberties argument can be sustained in a case where a party comes to the Court seeking an order from the Court that she be paid a substantial sum of

ORDER

3  60

30082002 T8-9/RAP09 M/T ROK2/2002 (Dutney J)

money as a result of injuries which she says she has suffered.	1
It seems to me that the price of seeking such an order from the Court is disclosure of a great deal of material which in other circumstances would be considered confidential. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, that is the price they pay if

10

they want to receive a substantial damages award.

The question of whether the file is directly relevant concerns me a little. The contents of the file are unknown. It is not known whether the forms lodged are consistent or inconsistent

20

with the claims being made by the plaintiff in the action.

Nonetheless, on balance, I am persuaded that they probably
have sufficient relevance to meet the test identified by

Demack J in Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd (1997) 2

30

Queensland Reports 102 at 105, where his Honour held that directly relevant meant "something which tends to prove or disprove the allegation in issue".

Although the evidentiary value of a statement as to her

40

working capacity made by the plaintiff in applying for a
benefit from Centrelink may not have a great deal of weight,
it does seem to me to be relevant to the question of whether

or not she has any residual working capacity.

50

In view of Judge Robertson's decision in Erskine, a decision which seems to me to be correct in so far as it refers to power and control, I do not think that the ordinary disclosure rules of the Court are sufficient to cover a file which is in

ORDER

4  60

30082002 T8-9/RAP09 M/T ROK2/2002 (Dutney J)

the possession of a Commonwealth department. The issue then	1
is whether I am persuaded that I should make orders under the other powers which the rules provide to direct parties to act in particular ways.

10

I am told, and it seems to be correct, that the department is not amenable to the usual third party processes of the Court. Neither is the department prepared to act on the statutory

consent which the plaintiff has given to access records held by Government departments. The file will not be released by

20

Centrelink to the solicitors for the defendant unless a particular authority is provided by the plaintiff in that respect.

In all the circumstances it seems to me to be a slight

30

intrusion on the rights of a plaintiff to require the defendant for the purposes of the litigation.

plaintiff to give a further authority specifically directed to

40

In view of the relief which the plaintiff seeks, it seems to me that the slight intrusion to which I have referred, when weighed against the benefit which the plaintiff seeks to obtain from litigation is such that the intrusion is warranted.

50

Accordingly, I propose to order that the plaintiff execute an authority provided to her by the solicitors for the defendants

ORDER

5  60

30082002 T8-9/RAP09 M/T ROK2/2002 (Dutney J)

directed to Centrelink requesting the release to those	1
solicitors of the Centrelink file.
Now is that all you require, Mr Hollyoak?

10

MR HOLLYOAK: I was just checking with my solicitor, your Honour. I believe so. That’s - I understand that’s all we need is that specific authority which I think is already exhibited to the material.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, I make an order in those terms then if you are satisfied that that is all you require?

20

MR HOLLYOAK: Yes. Would your Honour mind giving me liberty to apply in the event that there is some consequential paperwork that’s necessary?

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well I give the parties liberty to

30

apply. And what about costs?

…

HIS HONOUR: What I propose to do, Mr Hollyoak, is order that

40

the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the application in

any event, and I make that order.

-----

50

ORDER

6  60