This was an Appeal of an Order compelling the Plaintiff to produce settlement documents from a prior action regarding a 2020 motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff argued that the documents were privileged, while the Defendants maintained that they were relevant and material to damages in the litigation arising from a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Court emphasized that Rule 5.2 governs the standard for disclosure and production. Under Rule 5.2(1), information must be both relevant, meaning it could significantly help determine issues in the pleadings, and material, meaning it could significantly help prove a fact in issue. The Court held that relevance is determined by the pleadings, while materiality involves judgement about whether the information could meaningfully contribute to proving the case.

Although the Applications Judge had ordered production, the Appeal Justice found that the documents did not meet the threshold of Rule 5.2 at this stage. The Court held that settlement documents are generally protected by class settlement privilege, which can only be pierced when a public interest outweighs the interest in preserving settlement confidentiality. While prevention of double recovery may justify disclosure, the Court held that such concerns are premature unless and until a trial judge finds the Plaintiff's injuries indivisible across the two collisions.

The Appeal was allowed. The Production Order was set aside, and the documents were not to be produced unless and until the trial judge determined the injuries were indivisible.