Fuller v Allen (No 2)

[2020] ACTSC 119

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Fuller v Allen (No 2)

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 119

Hearing Date:

11 May 2020

DecisionDate:

11 May 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

The application for leave to withhold service of the surveillance footage is granted.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – Personal injury - ex parte application – motor vehicle accident – application for leave to withhold service – second application

Parties:

Tim Allen (Applicant)

Insurance Australia Limited Trading as NRMA Insurance
(Co-Applicant)

Representation:

Counsel

B Jones (Applicants)

Solicitor

Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Applicants)

File Number:

SC 20 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

1. On 11 February 2020, I heard an application brought by the defendant seeking leave to not disclose or not serve certain surveillance information in respect of what was then a forthcoming hearing. I allowed the application.

1. The matter then went to hearing before Mossop J and in the course of the hearing an issue arose as to the particulars that had been provided by the plaintiff. By this stage, the plaintiff had not been cross-examined nor had any surveillance been shown to the Court. The matter is due to resume on 18 May 2020.

1. On 6 May 2020, the defendant filed another application along the same lines as that mentioned above seeking leave not to serve certain video footage that had been exposed since the matter became part heard. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Rohan Reddy, affirmed on 6 May 2020. 

1. My initial concern was that the matter should be heard by Mossop J. However, having had an explanation as to why it has come back before me, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to deal with the Application, especially having regard to the possibility that the material might not be used in the case but if seen by Mossop J, and that fact comes to the attention of the plaintiff, a perception of impropriety might arise. It will, of course, only be a perception but nevertheless justice must be seen to be done. 

1. I am satisfied on the basis of the affidavit that the application is well founded. Accordingly, I make Orders 1 and 2 in the Application in Proceeding filed on 6 May 2020.

I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 22 May 2020