Gaylard and John Holland Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an objection by the applicant, Gaylard, to the respondent, John Holland Pty Ltd, inspecting material produced by VicRoads under a summons. The dispute centred on the relevance of the documents sought by the respondent to the issues raised by the reviewable decision. The case was heard by Senior Member R Cameron.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the material produced by VicRoads pursuant to the summons was relevant for a legitimate forensic purpose that would facilitate the conduct of the proceeding. This required the court to consider the concept of adjectival relevance, determining if the documents sought could possibly throw light on the issues to be determined in the principal proceedings, and whether the respondent's actions constituted an oppressive or speculative "fishing expedition."

The court applied well-settled principles regarding the issuance of summonses and the inspection of documents. It affirmed that the test for relevance is whether the material has an apparent relevance to the issues in the proceedings, meaning it could reasonably be expected to illuminate some of those issues. The court distinguished this from a "fishing expedition," which involves seeking documents without any basis to discover if a case exists. In this instance, the court found that the summons was neither a fishing expedition nor speculative, particularly given that a clinical note from the applicant's treating general practitioner had already been made available for assessment purposes.

The objection by the applicant to the respondent's inspection of the material produced under summons was disallowed.