Litigation lawyers

What are your disclosure obligations?

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsWhat are your disclosure obligations?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In a litigious matter, once all the parties in the proceedings have filed their pleadings (documents such as a Statement of Claim, Defence and Reply), pleadings are said to have ‘closed’.  Once pleadings have closed, parties to legal proceedings in State based courts are usually obliged to provide disclosure.  Note that this article does not discuss the disclosure obligations in the Federal Court where the obligations regarding disclosure are different.  To many, this process may seem daunting and confusing, so in this article we consider the key elements of disclosure in Queensland under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Time for disclosure

Rule 214(2) of the UCPR provides that disclosure is required within 28 days after the close of pleadings (unless further pleadings or amended pleadings are filed).

Following rule 214(2), after the final pleading is filed in the matter (generally this will be a Reply), then the parties have 28 days in which to provide the other parties with their disclosure.  For example, if a Reply was filed on 1 January, if no further pleadings are filed in the matter, disclosure is due by 29 January.

What is required to be disclosed?

Rule 211 provides that a party to a proceeding has a duty to disclose to each other party any document:

  • in the possession or under the control of the party;
  • directly relevant to an allegation in issue to the proceedings; and
  • if there are no pleadings – directly relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings.

A document is defined in schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) to include:

  • any paper or other material on which there is writing;
  • any paper or other material on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for a person qualified to interpret them; and
  • any disc, tape or other article or any material from which sounds, images, writing or messages are capable of being produced or reproduced (with or without the aid of another article or device).

When is a document under a party’s possession or control?

A party will be required to disclose documents under its possession or control.  The key to this provision is noting that parties will be required to disclose documents if they are in their possession or their control, but it is not necessary that they both possess and control the document simultaneously.

A party will be in possession of a document if the party has the physical possession or the right to possess the document.  Examples of this may be:

  • a party maintains the document on a computer in their house (physical possession);
  • a party maintains a signed copy of a document (physical possession); or
  • a party maintains documents in a safe deposit box (right to possess).

A party will be in control of a document if the party has the power to exercise discretion over the document or the ability to access or request the document remotely.  Examples of this may be:

  • a party can download a bank statement from their bank by request; or
  • a party can require a third party (who maintains possession of the document) to do an act in relation to that document.

When is a document “directly relevant” to an allegation in issue to the proceedings?

A document will be directly relevant if the document relates to allegation in issue.  There has been much judicial consideration of when documents are “directly relevant”, and therefore discoverable, over one hundred (100) years.  The current position in Queensland is that a document will be directly relevant if it tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue (this position was set out in Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1996] QSC 232 and has been accepted by numerous cases since).

Following this test, it is apparent that the documents that will need to be disclosed are documents that are relevant to any of the allegations in issue in the proceedings.  In order to ascertain the allegations in issue, the party will need to be aware of the pleadings filed in the matter which set out the allegations relied upon by the parties.

Where a document which is subject to disclosure contains information that is both directly relevant to, and not relevant, to an allegation in issue in a proceeding, the general principle is that the whole of the document should be disclosed.

Documents that do not need to be disclosed

Rule 212 provides that the following documents do not need to be disclosed:

  • a document that is privileged;
  • a document only relevant to credit; or
  • an additional copy of a document already disclosed; if it is reasonable to suppose the additional copy contains no change, obliteration or other mark or feature likely to affect the outcome of the proceeding.

Requirements for disclosure

Rule 214(1)(a) provides that disclosure may be performed by providing each other party in the proceedings with a list of documents (List of Documents) setting out the documents the disclosing party believes are discoverable.  The List of Documents must also set out any documents the disclosing party is claiming that it is not required to disclose on the basis that the documents are privileged.  Whether a document is privileged can be a complex question, generally requiring legal advice.

The List of Documents is required to be in a Form 19.

Once the parties provide each other with their List of Documents, the parties must make available (or deliver to the other party), at the other party’s request, copies of the documents mentioned in the List of Documents, other than the documents to which legal privilege from disclosure is claimed.

Documents requested must be delivered within 14 days of that request.

Continuing obligation to disclose

The obligations for disclosure do not cease after the parties have prepared their List of Documents.  Rule 211(2) provides that the parties are under a continuing obligation of disclosure until the matter is decided.  This means that should a party find themselves in possession or control of a document that is directly relevant to an allegation in the proceedings, they are required to disclosure that document to the other parties.

Takeaways

Disclosure is an important, but burdensome, procedure in the litigation process.  It is important for parties to be aware of their rights and obligations when providing disclosure in a litigious matter.  If a party is unsure of their obligations, their rights or the method of providing discovery, consulting a lawyer as soon as possible is very important.

Links and further references

Cases

Robson v Reb Engineering Pty Ltd [1996] QSC 232

Legislation

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Further information about litigation and disputes

If you need assistance regarding a litigious matter that you are involved in, or any potential litigation, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.


Related insights about litigation and disputes

  • Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note). 

    Read more …

  • Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent).  The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…

    Read more …

  • Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments.  The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…

    Read more …

  • What is a concise statement?

    What is a concise statement?

    A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1]  Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016.  Its stated purpose…

    Read more …

  • Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders

    Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders

    The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders.  The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…

    Read more …

  • Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal

    Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal

    Article 26 (Article 26) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) empowers an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) to appoint its own expert in a dispute.[1]  The expert’s role is to create a report and provide oral testimony.  While parties may appoint their own experts, doing so can contravene principles of impartiality and…

    Read more …

  • Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression

    Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression

    Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.

    Read more …

  • Tortious contract interference – injunctive relief

    Tortious contract interference – injunctive relief

    The wrongful or “tortious” interference with a contract occurs when a third party intentionally causes a contracting party to commit a breach of contract.  The third party will be liable if they intentionally induced or disrupted a party’s ability to perform the terms of a binding contract.  Remedies for tortious interference are available to ensure…

    Read more …

  • Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders.  Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend