In personal injuries litigation in Western Australia, the discretion under O 36 r 4 to excuse a party from producing surveillance video for inspection before trial is biased towards disclosure. The prevailing District Court practice of routinely withholding surveillance video to ambush plaintiffs at trial is erroneous. A defendant seeking non-disclosure must show persuasive grounds relating to the particular circumstances of the individual case, and the court must consider unfairness to both parties, whether the plaintiff has already committed to her case in pleadings and medical reports, and whether the defendant's medical advisers have seen the video.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 25 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 25 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.