Australia: Public Liability: 'Consequential Incongruities'- PIPA developments

Insurance update

Section 30(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA) provides that specific types of 'report' must be disclosed even though otherwise protected by legal professional privilege. In respect of that provision:

The absence of any discernable rationale for the types of information or documents selected for loss of privilege means that whatever the meaning given to the provision, there will be consequential incongruities (State of Queensland v Allen [2011] QCA 311 at [84]).

The section has proved particularly problematic in relation to witness statements and file notes taken by solicitors in the course of 'pre-court' procedures. The case of Watkins v State of Queensland [2007] QCA 430 (Watkins) gave rise to some difficulties about existence of privilege and whether a file note by a solicitor could be a 'report'. In the two recent cases of State of Queensland v Allen [2011] QCA 311 (Allen) and Felgate v Tucker [2011] QCA 194 (Felgate), the Court of Appeal has provided some much needed clarification.

The Legislation

Section 30(2) of the PIPA provides:

30(1) A party is not obliged to disclose information or documentary material under division 1 or this division if the information or documentary material is protected by legal professional privilege.

30(2) However investigative reports, [and] medical reports...must be disclosed even though otherwise protected by legal professional privilege...

Watkins v State of Queensland

In Watkins, the Court of Appeal doubted the application of 'litigation privilege' and if privilege applied, suggested a solicitor's file note was a 'report'.

The claimant served a notice of claim under s 94 of the PIPA in respect of a medical incident. The respondent gave the claimant written notice liability was denied under s 20 of the PIPA. In support of that denial, a medical report was provided to the claimant. Section 20(3) of the PIPA provides:

(3) An offer, or counteroffer of settlement must be accompanied by a copy of medical reports...and all other material, including documents relevant to assessing economic loss, in the offerer's possession that may help the person to whom the offer is made make a proper assessment of the offer.

The respondent offered nil. The claimant sought:

  • Letters from the respondent's solicitors to the author of the report; and
  • File notes, minutes or memoranda created by the solicitors recording a telephone conference with the expert.

The Court held the report which the respondent disclosed (and which the subsequent file note addressed) was not privileged. The Court held the report was obtained for the dominant purpose of complying with s 20(3), not anticipated litigation. The liability response expressly stated the report was being provided as the basis for the offer made in the letter (at [69]). Because the report was not privileged, either at general law or under s 30 of the PIPA, it would be anomalous if the communications underlying it were, so they were not privileged (at [81-2]).

The affidavit material did not depose to the dominant purpose for which the disclosed report was obtained as opposed to the purpose of the letter of instruction and the communication contained in the file note (at [41]). With respect, this was not terribly surprising where the obligation to disclose the report was not in dispute. The solicitor swore an affidavit that the letters of instruction and file note 'were brought into existence for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation'. Keane JA noted:

... the accuracy of the Affidavit's assertions of fact was accepted on Mr Watkins' behalf at first instance even though the deponent did not swear that she believed that the pre-proceeding processes were doomed to fail and that litigation would ensue. (at [69]).

The suggestion evidence was required that the pre-court proceedings were doomed to fail raised questions about making out a claim for 'litigation privilege', where the 'dominant' purpose of the PIPA was that there should be no litigation at all (at [67-68]).

The Court also suggested the file was a 'report'. Jerrard JA said:

... A note recording information about the circumstances of the claimant child's birth is a report about the incident alleged to have given rise to the personal injury to which his claim related. It therefore falls within the class of documents which the State is obliged to give the claimant...(Watkins at [24]).

Following Watkins, parties could no longer proceed on the basis that a file note was not by definition a report, and it was unsurprising that the issue arose again.

After Watkins - Allen & Felgate

In Allen, the claimant suffered severe brain damage following a procedure. The claimant sought production of 'investigative reports, file notes and other documents, that report on the provision of medical services provided to the claimant'.

Shortly after the procedure, the Acting Executive Director of the Medical Services for the relevant Health Service District wrote to solicitors identifying potential medico-legal risk. The solicitors advised statements should be obtained from various medical practitioners 'sooner rather than later'. The solicitors framed a list of questions to each doctor and asked each doctor to prepare a written 'report' marked privileged and confidential.

The documents in issue were a report prepared by one of the doctors recording his answers to the questions and two file notes of a solicitor, recording information conveyed by a doctor in a conversation with the solicitor. The primary judge held that these documents were disclosable under s 30(2) of the PIPA. Applying Watkins, the solicitor's file note was held to be a 'report' and both documents were 'investigative reports', meaning: a ' as a result of an investigation into a medical incident' ([2010] QSC at [37]).

As to privilege, the documents came into existence for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation. Although the applicant's family had not threatened litigation, contemporaneous documents including the letter to solicitors indicated that the matter had a 'medico-legal risk' (at [24]).

On appeal, the finding of privilege was not in issue. Remarks made by the Court suggest it might not have been the strongest example ([2011] QCA 311 per Fryberg J at [79], White JA at [68]).

All three Justices held that the solicitor's file notes were not 'reports', nor were they 'investigative'. Fraser JA held the document produced by the doctor 'might' be a report, but it was not 'investigative' or 'medical'. White JA and Fryberg J held the doctor's 'statement' (as described by Fryberg J at [92]) was both a 'report' and 'medical'.

Dealing with the proposition that a solicitor's file note was a 'report', White JA expressly disagreed (at [67]). Fraser JA distinguished the remarks on the basis the doctor in Watkins was not a factual witness (at [30]). Fryberg J did not say file notes could never be reports (at [88]) but noted there was: foundation for inferring the solicitor who was making them was making a report which has been recorded in the form of a file note (at [88]).

Nor were the documents 'investigative', applying dictionary definitions of that term. They were not produced as a result of a process of investigating or a systematic examination. Fraser JA held:

[26] I accept that the process in which PCH engaged upon the advice of its solicitor was a systematic enquiry of the doctors who might be able to provide information about the medical procedure and related matters. That overall process might be regarded as an 'investigation' within the ordinary meaning of that word, but the question is whether a particular document is itself an 'investigative report'. None of the documents in issue has that quality. None is a report of the result of the overall process recommended by the solicitor...The resulting record of information is no more 'investigative' in character than any witness statement or solicitor's file note of information within the witness' own knowledge...

[27] In my opinion, a statement by a witness to an incident alleged to have caused personal injury to a claimant, or a solicitor's file note, which records that person's recollection of the circumstances of the incident and the person's opinion about the incident for use in anticipated litigation, is not, in ordinary parlance, an investigative report.

White JA found there was not in the case of any of the documents a 'process of investigating' or a 'systematic investigation' (at [66]).

On the issue of communications to lawyers, the Court followed the earlier decision of Felgate v Tucker [2011] QCA 194. In that case, the respondent produced a document entitled 'interpretation of anaesthetic record' during the compulsory conference. The claimant sought disclosure of the statements the respondent had given to his lawyers. McMurdo P held:

To construe the Act as removing the application of legal professional privilege to oral or documented communications between lawyers and clients would be extra-ordinary, even revolutionary (at [47])...

Client's instructions to lawyers and consequential notes and statements are not ordinarily considered reports (at [48]).

On the issue of privilege, evidence was that a statement was taken after the initial notice under s 9A of the PIPA to provide legal advice about 'any anticipated judicial proceeding'. The Court held:

As the pre-court procedures mandated by the Act are an essential part of any future litigation when [solicitors] took...instructions resulting in the production of the document their dominant purpose was in contemplation of future litigation. That was so even though the instructions also concerned the more immediate issue of meeting the mandatory pre-court procedures (at [46]).

In Allen, The Court of Appeal adopted the same approach to communications between lawyers and agents of the client in respect of anticipated litigation. The dominant purpose of the PIPA might be there is no litigation, but compliance with the PIPA is a necessary pre-condition to litigation. As noted in Felgate, the objects of the PIPA would not be advanced by abolishing privilege and discouraging candour between solicitor and client (at [48]).

Some issues remain - 'medical reports'

The picture is getting clearer but some issues remain. In defining 'reports' the Court has occasionally drawn a distinction between 'solicitor-client' communications and 'third party' communications:

Watkins, Allen and James are also of little assistance in determining the issues in this case. They each concerned whether legal professional privilege attached to third party communications, not whether legal professional privilege attached to communications between clients and lawyers. Any statements as to the interpretation of the Act in those cases must be construed in that context (Felgate at [41]).

Section 30(1) does not distinguish 'third party' communications once the threshold question of privilege is satisfied.

In Allen, a majority (White JA and Fryberg J) held the document produced by the doctor was a 'medical report'. The appellant contended that the PIPA should not be construed to specifically deprive medical practitioners of privilege in their witness statements. In answer to that submission, the majority held that a medical practitioner respondent to a PIPA claim would not be deprived of privilege, because any statement given by a potentially liable medical practitioner to his or her solicitor could not sensibly be described as a 'medical report' for the purposes of the Act (at [69] per White JA, [99] per Fryberg J).

Fryberg J observed that a 'report' was not a 'proof of evidence' (at [97]). In comparing this to a statement taken by a loss adjuster (which in his Honour's view would not attract legal professional privilege) His Honour presumably had in mind a statement taken by a solicitor.

The construction adopted by the Court of Appeal leads to an emphasis on whether the person giving the statement is a party: 'They themselves were not the likely subjects of possible litigation. Their employer was' (at [69] per White JA). Similarly, Fryberg J observed:

[98] In the present case the appellant is not a medical practitioner. It is the State of Queensland. It claims that the statement is privileged in its hands because it was obtained for its solicitors for use in anticipation of litigation against the hospital. That was the basis, and the only basis, on which privilege was found to exist. At the time the statement was provided those solicitors were not acting for the doctor who made the statement. Privilege is not being claimed by the author of the statement. Indeed there is nothing in the evidence to suggest any likelihood of liability on the part of that doctor.

With respect, the majority potentially misses the point in cases where indemnity is provided by the State. A doctor may not be a party, but might conceivably provide a statement in respect of activities within the scope of duties as an employee of the State. The communication is given as agent of a party: see for example Algar v Queensland [2011] QSC 200, where notes of conferences between solicitors and a doctor engaged by the defendant were privileged as solicitor-client communications for the purposes of advice.

In Allen, Fraser JA held that a 'statement by a witness to an incident' did not fall within s 30(2). Fryberg J referred to a 'proof of evidence' citing s 37 (2)(b) of the PIPA which refers to 'witness statements from persons other than expert witnesses, the party intends to call as witnesses at the trial'. As his Honour held such a 'proof of evidence' is not a report within s 30(2) (at [97]), it seems that witness statements are not 'reports'. And they are probably not investigative to the extent they simply record matters within the witnesses own knowledge.

Such reasoning does not answer the question for a witness who is a medical practitioner (and might provide a 'medical report'). This is because a 'medical report' does not have to be 'investigative' so a document which does no more than record the doctor's own knowledge is caught (see Allen at [66] per White JA). Despite the suggestion by Fryberg J that a 'proof of evidence' is outside s 30(2), it may be difficult to determine the difference between a 'proof of evidence' and a document the subject matter of which is: the '[claimant's] condition and the doctor's involvement with him' (the description of the document in Allen at [95]).


Recent developments in the Court of Appeal have done much to remove uncertainty caused by the obiter statements in Watkins. With the exception of respondents in medical liability claims, it appears solicitors acting for respondents in PIPA claims can obtain their client's evidence in respect of the claim with the protection of legal professional privilege (with most certainty in cases where they are engaged to provide advice). In Allen, the majority was at pains to point out this was also the case for medical practitioner respondents, although this is not clear. In fact, the majority referred to policy reasons for disclosure. Fryberg J remarked:

In cases where a doctor is a defendant, he gets the benefit of the special report at a very early stage of proceedings. The loss of legal professional privilege in respect of medical reports (whether by the defendant or others) can be seen as a trade off for the benefit (at [100]).

Arguably the Court has defined 'reports' to protect solicitor-client communications.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.