Bradley and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) between Bradley (the Applicant) and the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Respondent). The dispute centred on whether the parties should be released from an implied undertaking regarding documents produced under compulsion during the AAT proceedings. The Applicant opposed the Respondent's request for release.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether to grant the Applicant's and the Respondent's requests for release from the implied undertaking concerning documents produced in response to a summons. The Tribunal considered Part 5 of its General Practice Direction, which outlines the conditions under which an implied undertaking applies to documents obtained under compulsion, and the circumstances in which it may be released. The Tribunal also referred to the High Court's decision in *Hearne v Street*, which established the principle that documents disclosed under compulsion cannot be used for a purpose other than that for which they were given, without leave of the court.

The Tribunal reasoned that the implied undertaking, also known as the Harman Undertaking, continues even after an application has been finalised. It noted that seeking a release to induce the Applicant to discontinue their application was not a proper basis. Furthermore, documents that might be used to make a complaint about a practitioner could also fall outside the scope of the undertaking if they are not used in the course of the review. The Tribunal concluded that there was no pressing need to determine the release requests at that stage of the proceedings.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the applications to release either party from the substantive obligations owed with respect to the identified documents. The parties were advised that it remained open to them to re-enliven their requests if necessary, after the closure of evidence in the review applications.