Griffin v South Australia

In *Griffin v. South Australia*, Hurtle Griffin brought an action in the High Court of Australia against the State of South Australia, seeking damages for alleged negligent storage of wheat. Following an order for discovery, the State objected to producing certain documents, claiming they were "State documents" and that their disclosure would be prejudicial to public interests. The plaintiff then applied for an order compelling the State to produce these documents for inspection.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether a statement by a State Minister, asserting that the production of documents would be prejudicial to public interests, is conclusive and prevents a court from ordering their inspection. Second, if such a statement is not absolutely conclusive, whether there were any special circumstances in this particular case that would justify the Court in exercising its power to inspect the documents itself to assess the validity of the objection.

The majority of the Court, comprising Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins, and Rich JJ., held that where a State objects to producing documents that are indeed "State papers," a statement by the relevant Attorney-General or Minister that their production would be prejudicial to public interests is conclusive. This principle, which was affirmed by reference to established authorities including *Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Commonwealth (No. 2)*, means the Court will not typically go behind such a claim. Furthermore, the majority found that in this specific case, there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted departing from this rule and inspecting the documents to verify the objection. Starke J. dissented.

Consequently, the application by the plaintiff for an order for inspection of the documents was dismissed.