Tahana v Hines - [2021] NSWSC 564

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tahana v Hines [2021] NSWSC 564
Hearing dates: 14 May 2021
Date of orders: 14 May 2021
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) I order that the plaintiff provide to the solicitors for the first and sixth defendants by 5.00pm on 17 May 2021 an executed authority for access to the plaintiff's Centrelink records.
(2) Costs are to be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Interlocutory applications – Defendants seeking access to plaintiff’s Centrelink records – Power of court to order plaintiff to provide an authority to allow the defendants to access Centrelink records – Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
El-Helou v Smith [2009] NSWSC 741
Merkuloff v Yalisheff [2003] NSWSC 1183
Wray v Wray [2007] NSWSC 164

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Richard Tahana (Plaintiff)
Greg Hines (First Defendant)
Gordian Runoff Limited (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R O’Keefe (First and Sixth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff)
Vardanega Roberts (First and Sixth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/308650
Publication restriction: None

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me on 14 May 2021 as Duty Judge by way of an urgent application on a motion filed by the first and sixth defendants (“the defendants”) on 7 May 2021.
The defendants seek an order that the plaintiff provide to the solicitors for the defendants by 5pm on 17 May 2021 an executed authority for access to the plaintiff's Centrelink records.
Mr O'Keefe appears for the defendants and Mr Hall‑Johnston appears for the plaintiff. The plaintiff opposes the orders sought in the motion.

Background

The plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 3 December 2013. He claims substantial damages from each of the defendants.
The proceedings are listed for hearing commencing 31 May 2021.
The issue that brings this matter to court is that the defendants seek access to the plaintiff’s Department of Social Services records for the purposes of contesting at the least the plaintiff's claim for economic loss. The plaintiff has declined to provide an authority to the defendants to obtain access to the social security records.

The defendants’ contentions

In brief, the defendants submit that:

the Court has the power to make an order directing the plaintiff to provide the signed authority, having regard to the Court's inherent power as well as ss 56 and 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“CPA”); and

the Court should make an order in the particular circumstances of this matter on the basis that the documents could have some relevance to the issues between the parties.

The defendants submit that having regard to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“Social Security Act”), the request for the direction should be considered on the same principles as a request for a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tahana v Hines

Details

AGLC: Tahana v Hines [2021] NSWSC 564
Case: [2021] NSWSC 564
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Tahana v Hines involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Tahana, and the defendants, Hines, regarding the defendants' request to access the plaintiff's Centrelink records. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over civil matters. The defendants sought an order for the plaintiff to provide an authority to allow them to access the plaintiff's Centrelink records, which the plaintiff had previously withheld.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the power to order the plaintiff to provide an authority for the defendants to access her Centrelink records. The court needed to consider the relevant legislative framework, including the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), to determine the scope of its powers in this regard. The court also had to balance the plaintiff's right to privacy and confidentiality against the defendants' need for the information in the records to properly conduct their case.

In its decision, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) and concluded that it did have the power to order the plaintiff to provide an authority for the defendants to access her Centrelink records. The court found that the statutory provisions allowed for such an order to be made where it was necessary for the administration of justice. The court also noted that the plaintiff's right to privacy and confidentiality was not absolute and had to be weighed against the defendants' need for the information. The court found that the defendants' need for the information outweighed the plaintiff's right to privacy in this case and ordered the plaintiff to provide the necessary authority.

The court's final orders included an order for the plaintiff to provide an authority for the defendants to access her Centrelink records. The court also made orders for costs, including costs associated with the interlocutory application. The court's decision clarified the extent of its powers in relation to ordering access to Centrelink records in civil litigation and provided guidance to parties in similar disputes.

Orders