Sitki and Comcare (Compensation)

In this matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Dr Sitki objected to a summons issued by the Tribunal requiring the production of documents. The dispute concerned a claim for compensation for psychological injury, and Dr Sitki sought to rely on professional confidential relationship privilege as grounds for refusing to comply with the summons.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the objection based on professional confidential relationship privilege was valid and whether the summons was oppressive or speculative. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT) concerning professional confidential relationship privilege, noting that it is subject to a court's discretion and requires findings of fact regarding potential harm. The Tribunal also considered its own nature as a merits review body, not bound by the strict rules of evidence under the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that Dr Sitki's assertion of privilege lacked sufficient detail. Furthermore, even if the privilege were applicable, the Tribunal would need to weigh various factors, including the probative value and importance of the information, the nature of the proceeding, the availability of other evidence, the likelihood and extent of harm to Dr Sitki, and the Tribunal's ability to limit such harm. The Tribunal found that the objections were not made out and that the summons was not oppressive or speculative, and therefore, the obligation to comply with the summons remained.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the objections made by Dr Sitki and Dr Daver to the summonses. As the original production dates had passed, the Tribunal extended the date for production of the documents to 16 January 2023.