Townsville firm fights investigation into claim farming allegations

The exploitative claim farming practice involves third-party businesses contacting potential claimants without consent to persuade them into filing compensation claims. Once a vulnerable person is tricked into doing so, that claim is on-sold to lawyers.

Lawyers Weekly notes that at the time of writing, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission’s claim farming allegations against Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge had not been established.

In proceedings commenced with the High Court against the State of Queensland, Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge sought a declaration that Part 5B of the Motor Accident Insurance Act (Queensland) – which covers special investigations – was invalid.

The statement of claim noted the investigator has been conferred with compulsive powers, which require the production of a document or provision of an answer to a question “despite any claim for privilege against self-incrimination or legal professional privilege”.

The act also provides a “limited use immunity” where documents and answers are provided, which does not extend to “any prosecution for an offence against the claim farming provisions”.

VIEW ALL

Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge added that Part 5B provides that a report of an investigator is admissible in legal proceedings as evidence of the facts started in the report.

With regard to those three concerns, Rapid Legal Solutions and Windridge claimed Part 5B is inconsistent with the Constitution by impairing the integrity of state courts as repositories of federal jurisdiction. To make out its case, the parties have sought to rely on a decision in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).

Despite Rapid Legal Solution and Windridge’s objections, the matter has been remitted to the Queensland Supreme Court.

In the remittal application, the State of Queensland contended the proceedings were premature, the plaintiffs sought an invalidation of the entire Part 5B rather than particular provisions, and the proceedings do not raise any novel constitutional issues.

To the extent the resolution of the proceedings would involve an extension or development of existing principles, Justice Robert Beech-Jones said having the proceedings run in the Supreme Court would assist in “that development at least being identified and then being resolved through the usual appellate process”.

“What I do not think should occur at this stage is that resources of this court be occupied in respect of a challenge that appears to involve the application of existing principles, and – most importantly – is based on supposed impairments of the process of a fair trial or hearing when no such trial or hearing may ever occur,” he said.

The case: Rapid Legal Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Queensland [2025] HCATrans 41