Background
Rapid Legal Solutions Pty Ltd, a personal-injury law practice, and its legal practitioner director, John Francis Windridge, challenged Part 5B of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Part 5B establishes “special investigations” into suspected contraventions of Queensland’s claim-farming provisions. Those provisions address third parties encouraging people to make motor-vehicle claims and supplying their information to lawyers for referral fees. Section 74 prohibits specified referral-fee payments, while s 75 prohibits claim farmers from approaching potential clients to advance claims.
Under Part 5B, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission may appoint an investigator where it reasonably suspects a contravention. Section 87ZF permits demands for documents, information, assistance and attendance for examination. Section 87ZH creates offences for specified noncompliance and knowingly false or misleading information. Section 87ZI removes self-incrimination, penalty and legal-professional-privilege excuses. An investigator’s report is admissible as evidence of facts stated in it under s 87ZM, although not conclusive. Section 87ZQ ordinarily gives individuals use and derivative-use protection for incriminating compelled material, but s 87ZQ(3)(b) excludes proceedings for offences including ss 74 and 75.
The Commission appointed Glen Rice KC on 25 October 2024 to investigate Rapid Legal. On 20 November 2024 he issued a document-production notice concerning referral arrangements, payments and claimant instructions. Rapid Legal had not complied. That notice was the only compulsory process directed to either appellant, and neither had been charged. The appellants began in the High Court’s original jurisdiction; Beech-Jones J remitted the proceeding to the Supreme Court on 12 June 2025 under s 44(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Treston J dismissed the challenge: [2026] QSC 88.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal—Bond JA and Cooper J agreeing with Doyle JA—dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the State’s costs. It did not decide whether Part 5B actually infringed Chapter III of the Constitution or the Kable principle. Instead, applying the prudential approach discussed in Mineralogy Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia (2021) 274 CLR 219, it assumed the challenged provisions might be invalid and asked whether the controversy could nevertheless be resolved through reading down or severance.
The appellants accepted that ss 87ZF, 87ZH and 87ZI—the provisions directly engaged by the notice to Rapid Legal—were not themselves the target of their constitutional challenge. They argued that ss 87ZM and 87ZQ(3)(b), with incidental reliance on s 87ZI(2)(a), could facilitate sham trials through compelled admissions and admissible investigator reports. They conceded that their appeal failed if those provisions could be read down or severed.
Doyle JA held that s 9 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) applied. It directs legislation to be read within power and distributively unless a contrary intention appears. Applying Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs (2026) 100 ALJR 650, his Honour found no positive indication that Parliament intended Part 5B to operate fully or not at all. Removing the impugned operations might make prosecutions harder, but investigations, compulsory production, contempt enforcement and prosecutions would remain. Part 5B would also retain material differences from Part 5A, including different appointment thresholds, abrogation of legal professional privilege and contempt powers. Severance would not change the objective of investigating and prosecuting claim farming or create a new law. The remaining provisions could operate on the steps taken against Rapid Legal, so the constitutional question need not be determined.
Key Takeaways
- The appeal was dismissed on prudential construction and severance grounds, not through a definitive ruling that every challenged provision was constitutionally valid.
- Section 9 of the Queensland Acts Interpretation Act required preservation of Part 5B within power; reduced investigative or prosecutorial effectiveness did not establish an all-or-nothing legislative intention.
- The operative orders dismissed the appeal and awarded the State its appeal costs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Australian courts may avoid deciding a Chapter III challenge by assuming invalidity and preserving a workable statutory scheme through reading down or severance. It also shows that arguments based on reduced effectiveness or overlap with an earlier enforcement regime may not establish the contrary intention needed to displace general interpretation legislation.
For law practices facing claim-farming investigations, the immediate practical consequence was that Rapid Legal’s challenge did not invalidate the regime under which its outstanding production notice was issued. The Court’s reasoning leaves the underlying constitutional attack unresolved where the impugned provisions can be excised without defeating Part 5B’s purpose.