Agnello v Maliganis Edwards Johnson

[2024] ACTSC 106

Supreme Court of the ACT11 April 2024

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Evidence
3. › Disclosure of surveillance material
4. › Ex parte application to dispense with disclosure requirements
5. › Whether disclosure requirements should be dispensed with
6. › Whether material significant for testing plaintiff's evidence and credibility
7. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6704
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Evidence
3. › Surveillance evidence in personal injury proceedings
4. › Interpretation of r 6704 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)
5. › Whether rule abolishes privilege over surveillance material
6. › Whether non-compliance affects admissibility or only costs
7. › Uncertainty left unresolved

Quick Take

In personal injury proceedings in the ACT, a court may dispense with the disclosure requirements under r 6704(2) for surveillance and social media material where the material is significant for testing the plaintiff's evidence and credibility on a key issue such as work capacity, particularly where the material has not been used for expert evidence preparation. The question whether r 6704 abolishes legal professional privilege over surveillance material (as held in Queensland in Coster v Bathgate) remains unresolved in the ACT.