s.27 PIPA – obligation to disclose and provide information

Brady v Woolworth Limited [2010] QDC 260


NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act – pre-litigation procedure – obligations under s 27 to disclose documents and provide information – scope of – whether failure to comply

Ryrie DCJ

Leave was granted to proceed with the application despite the Request for Trial Date having been signed.

Her Honour applied

Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645

[10] It is also apparent from the copious correspondence annexed to the affidavit material relied on by both parties that each of them had taken their own stance with respect to whether or not further disclosure should have been made. I accept the submission which was made by Counsel for the applicant however that this court should exercise its’ discretion to hear the application for further and better particulars even though UCPR 444 had not been strictly complied with. Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645 is authority for the proposition that even if a party does not comply with the obligation imposed on it under UCPR 444, this court still has a discretion to allow an application to be made notwithstanding, as provided for by UCPR 470, in order to resolve any dispute between the parties.

Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91:

[15] A helpful summary of the relevant principles to be applied when considering s27 PIPA is set out in Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91 at para [21] by His Honour Judge McGill. In particular he noted that the principal authority in this area at the present time is Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. Relevantly he noted that Haug was authority for the proposition that the obligation imposed on a respondent by s27(1)(b)(i) was much broader in scope than that imposed by s27(1)(a)(i). His Honour also noted at para [37] in respect of that obligation, that there was also a difference between information as to whether a respondent did or omitted to do something and information which was only relevant to the question of whether the respondent had a duty of care to do something, or to do more, in the lead up to a particular incident.

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

Related Posts

Recent Comments



    Discover more from David Cormack, Barrister

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading