“Apparent Relevance” – Defining the Legal Test of Legitimate Forensic Purpose

In Brief

• Documents may have a legitimate forensic purpose if they are “apparently relevant” to the issues in the proceedings.
• Bank and credit cards records have an apparent relevance to multiple categories on the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale.

Facts

The decision in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Williams [2026] NSWPICMP 414 was delivered on 15 June 2026 and published on 26 June 2026.

The Claimant alleged physical and psychological injury following a motor accident on 25 May 2023. The Commission arranged a number of medical assessments to assess the permanent impairment arising from injuries caused by the accident.

The Insurer sought leave to serve a Direction for Production on the Commonwealth Bank of Australia seeking production of bank statements and credit card records. The Claimant refused to provide his consent.

The Member’s Decision

The Member referred to the decision in Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 and summarised the following principles:

• Legitimate forensic purpose will be presumed if the documents sought are “apparently relevant” to the issues in the proceedings.
• Documents may have a legitimate forensic purpose if they are capable of providing a legitimate basis for cross-examination, or go to credit, even if they are inadmissible.
• A parties’ inability to show that the documents are likely to assist its case will not necessarily mean there is no legitimate forensic purpose.

The Member found a legitimate forensic purpose in this dispute for the following reasons:

• Bank and credit card records will normally show spending habits which are directly relevant to how a claimant’s psychiatric impairment might be assessed on the PIRS categories of Travel (via the purchase of petrol), Social and Recreational Activities and Social Functioning.
• Bank and credit card records might also demonstrate receipt of income which is relevant to Adaptation.

For these reasons, the member proceeded to grant leave to serve the Direction for Production.

Why This Case is Important

The decision Williams is important because it sets the legal tests which are relevant to whether a Direction for Production may be issued.

Indeed, the Principal Member stated that he was moved to produce written reasons on an interlocutory dispute for the following reasons:

The objections to date in numerous matters have not shown a proper basis for objecting to a third-party producing a claimant’s “banking records”. There have been fruitless other objections in matters before the Commission opposing the grant of leave for directions for the production of medical records and records from investigatory bodies.

It must be emphasised that the decision to grant leave to issue a direction is not a determination of relevance but one of apparent relevance that the documents may have to the issues in dispute.

It should be unnecessary to deliver written reasons for the grant of leave to issue directions on third parties. However, the ongoing and often lack of meritorious submissions to date have resulted in the need to record and publish an interlocutory decision on this issue.