Скачать или смотреть Disclosure Qld 11: UCPR Rule 223 Unlocked: When Courts Compel Disclosure (and When They Don’t)

When can a Queensland court force a party to hand over documents—or swear on affidavit that they never existed? In this episode we break down *UCPR r 223* in plain English and show how it really works in practice.

You’ll learn:

*What the court can order:* delivery of copies, production for inspection, or an affidavit about the existence or fate of a document or class of documents.
*The gatekeepers in r 223(4):* either (a) *special circumstances + interests of justice**, or (b) an **objective likelihood* that disclosure duties haven’t been met, or that a document exists/existed but has left a party’s possession or control.
*Privilege check:* if disclosure is challenged, the court can *inspect the document* to decide the objection.
*Timing levers:* orders can require disclosure *earlier, later, or not at all* depending on proportionality and case management needs.

We also walk through the way judges actually apply these principles, including:

When “special circumstances” are truly **exceptional**, and why fishing expeditions fail.
How “objective likelihood” gets proven—e.g., *too-narrow keyword searches* or failure to confer on a document plan can trigger further disclosure.
Affidavits under r 223(2): when a party may be compelled to swear a document *doesn’t exist* or explain how control was lost (including with **electronic records**).
The court’s power to require steps that help obtain documents beyond a party’s immediate files (think *FOI applications* and directions where justified).
Costs and fairness angles: limited inspection of a solicitor’s file may be ordered to ensure *procedural fairness* in costs assessments, even where a lien is claimed.

*Practical playbook for litigators*

*Confer early* on search scope, keywords, custodians, and a **document management plan**—before you hit “export.”
*Document your searches* so you can prove reasonable steps if challenged.
**Target relevance**: tailor categories to live issues in the pleadings; avoid overreach that looks oppressive.
**Be candid about gaps**: if records were lost (e.g., system failure), be ready to explain and, if necessary, **swear to non-existence**.
**Use r 223(5) smartly**: seek judicial inspection to resolve privilege deadlocks efficiently.

By the end, you’ll have a crisp framework for either *securing* a r 223 order—or *resisting* one—without stumbling into proportionality traps, privilege missteps, or avoidable costs skirmishes.