Fuller v Allen

In the case of Fuller v Allen, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Allen, had been found to have breached their duty of care, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff applied for leave to withhold service of surveillance footage, which was relevant to the claim, on the defendant. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the footage was critical to their case and that serving it on the defendant prematurely could lead to spoliation, where the evidence is destroyed or tampered with.

The court was required to decide whether the application for leave to withhold service of the surveillance footage should be granted. This involved assessing the balance of convenience in favour of withholding the footage, as well as considering the potential prejudice to the defendant if the footage was not served promptly. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's concern about spoliation was substantiated and whether the withholding of the footage was necessary to protect the integrity of the evidence.

The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff's application to withhold the footage. The footage was deemed highly relevant and necessary for the plaintiff's case, and the court accepted that there was a risk of spoliation if the footage was served prematurely. The court noted that the defendant had not demonstrated any significant prejudice that would result from the withholding of the footage. Therefore, the application for leave to withhold service of the surveillance footage was granted.

No order was made regarding the costs of the application.