Decision
Ziaeipour v Transport Accident Commission [2026] NSWPIC 521
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
An injured Claimant makes a claim for damages, which includes a claim for economic loss. The Insurer seeks leave to issue a Direction for Production on the Claimant’s bank for production of documents relating to a housing loan taken out post-accident and discharged the following year. The Claimant withholds consent.
Does production of the Claimant’s loan records have a legitimate forensic purpose?
In Ziaeipour v TAC, a PIC Principal Member concluded that there was a legitimate forensic purpose because the loan documents likely included information about the Claimant’s earnings which had apparent relevance to his claim for economic loss.
Principles
✅ Documents may have a legitimate forensic purpose if they have “apparent relevance” to the issues in dispute in the proceedings.
✅ Loan documents have may have an apparent relevance to a claim for economic loss because they likely include information about earnings.
Facts
The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 25 February 2024. He subsequently made a claim for damages under common law, which included a claim for economic loss.
In response to a prior Direction for Production, the Insurer observed that a housing loan was obtained in December 2025 and discharged in mid-2026.
The Insurer, therefore, sought leave to file and serve a further Direction on the bank for production of the loan records.
The Claimant opposed the Insurer’s application.
The Principal Member’s Decision
The Principal 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 ot 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 Principal Member found a legitimate forensic purpose in this dispute because loan documents have apparent relevance to a claim for economic loss given that they are likely to include information about the Claimant’s earnings.
For these reasons, the Principal Member proceeded to grant leave to serve the Direction for Production.
My Perspective
The decision in Ziaeipour reiterates remarks made by the Principal Member in the prior decision of Williams.
In Williams, the Principal Member found that bank and credit card records have apparent relevance to an assessment of psychiatric impairment because spending habits are relevant to how psychiatric impairment is assessed on the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale. For example, evidence of restaurant purchases or theatre tickets has apparent relevance to whether the Claimant’s function in the domain of Social and Recreational Activities has been impaired.
In coming to his conclusion, the Principal Member noted that written reasons had become necessary, in an otherwise straight-forward interlocutory matter, because the Commission had seen opposition to Directions for Production in a number of matters which were “unmeritorious”.
The Principal Member reiterated that point, in Ziaeipour, in the following terms:
“I repeat what I stated in AAI Ltd v Williams] that it should be unnecessary to deliver written reasons for the grant of leave to issue directions on third parties. I again repeat that the ongoing and often lack of meritorious submissions to date have resulted in the need to record and publish a further interlocutory decision on this issue.
“The issuing of the direction is not an acceptance of documents by a decision maker which may or may not be relevant and otherwise explained. It is a legitimate forensic exercise by insurers when being sued for damages to test assertions such as an absence of earnings. In this matter I accept [the insurer’s] submission that it is a matter of common human experience that a loan application will be accompanied by proof of earnings.
“The insurer is entitled to make reasonable enquiries to test whether a claimant is in receipt of earnings. Leave to issue the direction is granted.”
PJH
The purpose of this case note is educational and should not be relied upon as legal or financial advice. My commentary is only current as at the time of publication. Readers affected by the issues raised in this case note should seek bespoke legal advice, noting that I act for CTP Insurers and I do not accept direct instructions from those injured in motor accidents.