Key takeaway points
- The plaintiff’s post-accident hiking trips were found directly relevant to assessing functional capacity, daily living, employment impact and treatment needs.
- The Court confirmed that social media posts form part of standard disclosure in personal injury matters.
- Claims that producing the material was overly burdensome or invaded privacy were dismissed. The Court held that personal injury litigation is inherently intrusive, and digital records were readily accessible.
- The disclosure request was clearly defined and tied to disputed issues, the Court ordered full compliance.
Overview
In the recent matter of Clements v Margalit & Anor [2025] QDC 197 the second defendant filed an application pursuant to sections 45(1) and 50 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA) requesting disclosure of material, including dates of trips, transportation and accommodation details, itineraries, photographs, video footage and social media posts.
This was made in relation to the plaintiff’s post-accident hiking trips on the grounds that such disclosure was directly relevant to assessing damages and was not an invasion of privacy or overly burdensome.
The issue
On 19 April 2023 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the first and second defendant for damages or personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31 July 2019.
Liability was admitted and the quantum of damages remains the issue.
The plaintiff alleges the following injuries and impacts as a result of the injuries she had sustained including ongoing pain to her right forehead, cervical spine, lumbar spine, pelvis; headaches, dizziness and reduced balance and vertigo; reduced ability to engage in everyday task; reduced capacity for chores; restricted capacity to undertake outdoor property maintenance; and restricted recreational activities.
Since the date of the accident, the plaintiff has further disclosed several activities through statutory declarations on 25 October 2024 and 22 November 2024 including:
- Guided Arctic Circle trek in January 2020
- Hiking trip in Tasmania
- Guided gorilla trek in Uganda in July 2022
- Trip to Tanzania in July 2022
- Hiking trip of the El Camino pilgrimage trail in Spain during August and September 2024
- Trip to the United Arab Emirates in July 2022
- Trip to Portugal and Morocco between September and October 2024
- New Zealand trip in March 2023 including sightseeing and canoeing.
The request for disclosure was only made in regard to the trips to the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda, Tanzania and Spain.
The second defendant submitted that the requested material would aid in shedding light on the difficulty of the terrain, camping conditions and whether there was any difficulty with the alleged significant daily headaches, nausea, vertigo and dizziness whilst undertaking the activities and carrying her own pack.
The plaintiff opposed the request stating the request was not sufficiently detailed in terms of what information is sought and how it would have substantial bearing on the real issues. It was further submitted that there was a large volume of material which would incur expense and imposed burden for her advisors to compile, check and review. It was also submitted that it would involve a gross invasion of her privacy.
The decision
It was not in dispute that since the accident the plaintiff has travelled in and out of Australia hiking across the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda, Tanzania and the El Camino trail in Spain.
Judge Grigg noted at [21]
‘Given the nature of the recreational activities the plaintiff has disclosed…it is not outside the bounds of common sense that documents which demonstrates and reflect the extent of the plaintiff’s medical conditions and prospects of rehabilitation are required to be disclosed‘.
Her Honour noted that the requested material was directly relevant under section 45 of the MAIA and rule 211 in the UCPR and would help to determine any disability, functional capacity, capacity for daily living and, therefore, capacity for employment and need for treatment. Further, Judge Grigg noted it is not uncommon for social media posts to be a part of disclosure in these types of matters.
The issue was whether such disclosure would be unreasonably onerous on the plaintiff. Her Honour was not satisfied that the task was unreasonably onerous, as the plaintiff deposed to having a vast amount of material stored in hard copy and electronic copy including easily accessible photographs on a USB stick. Her Honour decided only digital copies would be required and that sorting them by date stamp would not be an overburdensome task.
Her Honour highlighted that personal injury matters are by their very nature intrusive and that one cannot simply oppose disclosing material to due delicacy or privacy concerns. Further, Judge Grigg emphasised that the plaintiff noted the photographs were mainly of animals and scenery.
The second defendant’s application was successful, as Judge Grigg ordered the requested disclosure to be provided within 14 days to the second defendant’s solicitors. This material included a statutory declaration detailing the dates, transportation, accommodation, itineraries, routes, and checkpoints relating to the hiking trips. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the second defendant’s costs of the application.
Outcome
This decision confirms that parties to personal injury claims cannot avoid their disclosure obligations by asserting that compliance would be overly burdensome or an invasion of privacy where such concerns are not genuinely established.
Furthermore, where a request clearly specifies the type of information and documents sought, and those materials are directly relevant to an issue raised in the pleadings, the party will be required to produce the requested documentation.
