In the recent decision of Clements v Margalit & Ors [2025] QDC 197, the Queensland District Court ordered that the claimant, Ms Clements, disclose all of her holiday and travel photos and related social media material to the insurance company after she had uploaded some photos from her trips.
The plaintiff was involved in a car accident in July 2019. She suffered personal injuries and brought a compensation claim. She alleged that due to the accident, she had difficulty with everyday basic tasks such as bending, twisting and lifting. She also alleged that her capacity to pursue recreational activities, for example bike riding and trekking has reduced. She claimed damages from the compulsory third party insurer of the at fault driver. The insurer was Allianz.
Duty of disclosure
In any personal injury claim, the plaintiff must disclose to the insurer any documents about the plaintiff’s medical condition or prospects of rehabilitation. In addition, the plaintiff must also provide information to the insurer about any disabilities which they say they suffer as a result of the accident.
For example, if the plaintiff has a report prepared by a GP or a specialist, then that report must be given to the insurance company. But it doesn’t end there. Photographs or even videos which may show the plaintiff’s medical condition or disabilities are also relevant and must be given to the insurer.
In this case, Allianz found out that after the car accident the plaintiff travelled overseas on several occasions for hiking adventures. She travelled across the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda and Spain.
When Allianz learned about this, it filed an application with the district court. It asked the court to disclose to Allianz photos and social media posts showing the plaintiff’s hiking adventures. But Allianz didn’t stop there. It also applied for an order that the plaintiff swear a statutory declaration in relation to her overseas travel, in which she was to give full details about the dates of her hikes, her mode of transportation, as well as detailed itineraries, hiking locations and checkpoints.
The plaintiff tried to resist Allianz’s application. She argued that it would be too onerous to provide all the photos and social media posts. She said the photos were on a hard drive in one of 200 boxes that she stored at her property. She said she should not be expected to physically go through all the boxes to try and find the relevant information.
The court agreed with Allianz and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments. It held that because Allianz was specific in that it identified the trips which it was interested in, it was not too onerous to expect the plaintiff to find the photos.
Relevance test
Courts will order disclosure of social media material where it is directly relevant to issues in dispute — typically:
- The nature and extent of injuries
- Physical capacity and functional limitations
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Economic loss claims
If a plaintiff alleges significant physical or psychological restrictions, holiday photos or posts showing travel, physical activity, or social engagement may be relevant.
Privacy concerns
The plaintiff also argued that disclosing all these photos and other material would be an invasion of her privacy. The judge agreed with an earlier court decision, in which it was held that in a personal injury claim, when the plaintiff asks the court for damages, the price the plaintiff has to pay is that he or she must disclose all relevant information.
In this particular case not only did the plaintiff have to hand over all information and photos requested by Allianz, she also had to pay Allianz’s legal costs.
It goes without saying that most people would find it horrifying to have to hand over all of their holiday memories to an insurance company. However, this case shows that “Cherry picking” is not permitted by the Courts. That is, a claimant cannot:
- Rely on selective material (e.g., a few curated images),
- While withholding the broader context (e.g., the full set of holiday photos).
If a plaintiff voluntarily posts some material showing post-accident activities, the court may permit the defendant to test that evidence by requiring disclosure of the entire collection from the relevant period.
Courts are particularly concerned about partial disclosure that could create a misleading impression. Claimants should be mindful that, privacy concerns are not a sufficient ground to resist disclosure in a personal injury case.
