EEH v NSW Self Insurance Corporation [2021] NSWCATAD 21
Document 1 had apparent relevance and a legitimate forensic purpose because it could throw light on the disputed issue whether DLA Piper attended and participated in the mediation on behalf of EML as agent for the Respondent, which bore on whether the Respondent was a participant in the negotiations and formation of the Deed. Documents 2 and 3 did not have a legitimate forensic purpose because the Respondent conceded that EML collected the Deed on its behalf, so their disclosure would not throw light on any issue in dispute. Any legal professional privilege claim over Document 1 could not be determined without submissions and production of the document to the Tribunal in confidence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 February 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review Application Under S55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Concerning Alleged Breaches of Information Privacy Principles / Procedural Application on the Papers for Issue of a Summons to Produce Documents
- Outcome
- Application to issue a summons granted for Document 1 subject to any legal professional privilege submissions; refused for Documents 2 and 3.
- Legal Topics
- ['summons to Produce Documents' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'apparent Relevance' 'internal Review and Administrative Review Under the PPIP Act' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'workers Compensation Settlement Documents']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Application Under S55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Concerning Alleged Breaches of Information Privacy Principles / Procedural Application on the Papers for Issue of a Summons to Produce Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proposed summons for Document 1 had a legitimate forensic purpose by seeking material apparently relevant to whether DLA Piper attended the mediation on behalf of EML as agent for the Respondent.' 'Whether the proposed summons for Documents 2 and 3 had a legitimate forensic purpose in circumstances where the Respondent conceded that the Deed had been collected by EML on behalf of the Respondent.' 'Whether any legal professional privilege issues relating to Document 1 should be considered before disclosure.']
Ratio Decidendi
Document 1 had apparent relevance and a legitimate forensic purpose because it could throw light on the disputed issue whether DLA Piper attended and participated in the mediation on behalf of EML as agent for the Respondent, which bore on whether the Respondent was a participant in the negotiations and formation of the Deed. Documents 2 and 3 did not have a legitimate forensic purpose because the Respondent conceded that EML collected the Deed on its behalf, so their disclosure would not throw light on any issue in dispute. Any legal professional privilege claim over Document 1 could not be determined without submissions and production of the document to the Tribunal in confidence.
Court Disposition
Application to issue a summons granted for Document 1 subject to any legal professional privilege submissions; refused for Documents 2 and 3.
Orders
- ['Subject to the receipt of any submissions of the Respondent in accordance with Order 2 below, the application to issue a summons for the production of Document 1 is granted.' 'Within 14 days of the date of these reasons for decision the Respondent may make written submissions to the Tribunal in respect of any...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment