The Court held that the 'necessity' test under Tasmanian Supreme Court Rules 2000, r 408A(6)(a), means 'reasonably necessary for the disposing fairly of the cause or matter' or 'necessary in the interests of a fair trial', and does not impose a 'high bar' or require that interrogatories be a mechanism of last resort. Interrogatories directed to material facts in issue (including the circumstances of alleged grooming and abuse) were allowed, while interrogatories seeking to elicit tendency evidence — such as whether the defendant had been accused in other civil claims of sexual abuse or had relationships with other individuals — were disallowed as not directed to material facts and not justified by special reasons. The Court confirmed there is no material difference between the Tasmanian r 408A necessity test and the equivalent NSW UCPR r 22.1(4) test.
The full text is available to signed-in members.