Directions for Production

Directions for Production: “Apparent Relevance” Reiterated

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.

Non-Compliance with Direction for Production Renders Claim Unsuitable for Assessment

Decision

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Tanuja Banu [2026] NSWPIC 357

Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary

A Claimant makes a claim for damages following a motor accident. She was employed by her husband’s cleaning business prior to her accident.

The Insurer requests copies of the Claimant’s payslips to verify her claim for economic loss. The Claimant fails to fully comply. Her husband’s company fails to respond to a Direction for Production.

Should the damages claim be exempted from the Commission?

In IAG v Banu, a Senior Member concluded that the matter was not suitable for assessment because the Claimant’s payslips had “apparent relevance” to the assessment of the claim for economic loss and the Commission, unlike the Court, had no power to compel compliance with the Direction for Production.

Principles

✅ Pursuant to section 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), a claim for damages may be exempted where assessment by the Commission is not suitable.

✅ The primary issue in assessing suitability is whether the Commission can afford both parties a fair hearing.

✅ The Commission may not be able to afford a party a fair hearing in circumstances where an entity fails to respond to a Direction for Production given that the Commission, unlike a Court, cannot compel compliance.

Facts

The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 28 November 2023 and subsequently made a claim for damages.

She was employed by her husband’s cleaning business at the time of the accident. A dispute arises regarding the level of the Claimant’s personal exertion activity within the business.

At the request of the Insurer, the Commission issued a Direction for Production which required the Claimant’s employer to produce his payslips. The Claimant’s employer failed to comply with the Direction for Production.

The Insurer applied for a discretionary exemption on the grounds that the claim was not suitable for assessment by the Commission.

The Senior Member’s Decision

The Senior Member confirmed that the issue at hand is whether the claim is suitable for assessment by the Commission. The natural and ordinary meaning of “suitable” is “such as to suit; appropriate, fitting, becoming” – IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance v Khaled & ors [2019] NSWSC 320.

The Senior Member also confirmed that, in assessing suitability, a primary question was whether the Commission could afford both parties a fair hearing, in a practical sense – Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Banos [2013] NSWSC 1519

Having set out those principles, the Senior Member decided that the claim was not suitable for assessment by the Commission for the following reasons:

🟪 Whilst liability was admitted, the Claimant sought damages exceeding $1 million.

🟪 The reliability of the Claimant’s evidence was in issue.

🟪 The Claimant had not been able to provide the insurer with all the payslips which the Insurer had requested.

🟪 The pattern of income likely to be disclosed by the Claimant’s payslips – including income splitting with her spouse – had “apparent relevance” to the assessment of the Claimant’s damages.

🟪 The Claimant’s employer had not produced documents in response to a Direction for Production.

🟪 A Court has the power to compel compliance with a Subpoena for Production, whereas the Commission cannot compel compliance with a Direction for Production.

🟪 The Insurer cannot be afforded a fair hearing without access to the Claimant’s payslips.

🟪 The claim should be determined in a jurisdiction where the Insurer can compel production of records that are “apparently relevant” to the issues in dispute.

My Perspective

The decision in Banu underscores that the list of indicia of suitability in Rule 99(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. As the Senior Member noted, the sub-rule begins with the words “without limiting the matters that may be considered, the Commission may consider the following…”.

The real issue is whether the circumstances mean that one party will be denied a fair trial if the dispute remains in the Commission.

The fact the Commission cannot compel compliance with a Direction for Production is one factor which might cause a Commission hearing to be unfair to the party seeking production of documents. The party must still, however, demonstrate that the documents it seeks have “apparent relevance” to the issues in dispute.

PJH

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

Decision

AAI Limited t/as GIO v Williams [2026] NSWPICMP 414

Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary

An injured Claimant is scheduled to have his psychiatric impairment assessed by the Commission. The Insurer seeks leave to issue a Direction for Production on the Claimant’s bank for production of bank and credit card records. The Claimant withholds consent.

Does production of the Claimant’s bank records have a legitimate forensic purpose?

In GIO v Williams, a PIC Principal Member concluded that there was a legitimate forensic purpose because the Claimant’s spending habits were apparently relevant to multiple categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale.

Principles

✅ 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 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 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 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.

My Perspective

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.“

PJH