Oliver and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an objection by the Department to the inspection of four documents that had been summoned in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought access to these documents, which were created more than a year after the reviewable decision and after the applicant's case manager had been changed. The Department argued that these documents lacked a legitimate forensic purpose, would not shed light on the issues in dispute, were created for a separate purpose, and that their disclosure would not reasonably balance the Department's rights and the public interest in the administration of justice. Furthermore, the Department contended that the documents were sought to impugn the credibility of a former case manager, which it argued was not a relevant issue.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Department's objections to the inspection of the four summoned documents were valid, and if so, whether access should be denied. This involved considering the principles governing the inspection of summoned documents in tribunal proceedings, particularly in light of the requirement to ensure procedural fairness and provide parties with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal also had to assess the relevance of the documents to the proceedings and whether their disclosure would be oppressive or outweigh the public interest in the administration of justice.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal emphasised the critical importance of access to relevant material for procedural fairness. It referred to established case law, including *Comcare v Maganga*, which established that a party seeking inspection does not need to demonstrate the relevance of documents, but rather a real possibility that they may assist in resolving the matters before the tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the net for relevance should be cast broadly at this stage of proceedings, and access should not be lightly denied. While acknowledging that a party cannot use a summons to trawl for documents or solely to impugn the credit of a witness unless their credit is directly relevant, the Tribunal found that the Department's rights did not outweigh the public interest in the administration of justice. The Tribunal concluded that the Department might simply be embarrassed by the exposure of internal processes, and this did not justify denying access.

Ultimately, the Tribunal denied the objection to the documents. However, it ordered that the names of departmental staff, other than those of Ms Lam and Ms Wannell, should be redacted from the documents to protect their privacy, as their names were not otherwise referred to in the case. Access to the documents, with the specified redactions, was to be granted through the usual orders.