Jones and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an interlocutory application before Deputy President Mischin of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to issue summonses for the production of documents directed to the respondent's lawyers, as well as to various medical, hospital, and allied health service providers. The respondent objected to these requests.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it should grant the applicant's requests to issue summonses to the respondent's lawyers and to the medical and hospital providers. This involved considering the principles governing the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to issue summonses, particularly in relation to relevance, legitimate forensic purpose, and the avoidance of "fishing expeditions."

The Tribunal applied the general principles applicable to the issue of subpoenas by courts to the issuance of summonses by the Tribunal under section 40A(1)(b) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). It affirmed that the fundamental criterion for issuing a summons is relevance to the issues to be determined, meaning the documents must have a real possibility of assisting in the resolution of the proceedings or reasonably be expected to throw light on those issues. A legitimate forensic purpose, which could include use in cross-examination, is also required, and summonses should not be issued for improper purposes such as a "fishing expedition."

The Tribunal refused the request for a summons directed to the respondent's legal representative. It also refused the requests for summonses directed to the Royal Perth Bentley Group and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital as presently framed, finding them too broadly drafted and including material already produced. However, the Tribunal indicated it would grant a summons to the Nollamara Medical Centre, and would consider issuing a summons to the Royal Perth Bentley Group if the request were refined.