Evidence frustration through missing documents: damages claims in Austria

When records are missing in a damages matter, the issue is not only what has been documented. It also matters who had access to the information, whether the record concerns a material fact and how its absence affects the assessment of evidence.

A gap in documentation does not automatically amount to evidence frustration. It may result from loss, poor filing, short retention periods or an incomplete handover. Further circumstances are needed before deliberate obstruction can reasonably be considered.

This article explains how to assess missing records in an Austrian damages claim, prepare a request for production and distinguish established facts from assumptions.

A damages claim requires the harmful event, breach of duty, loss and causal connection to be set out in a comprehensible way. Missing records can make that reconstruction more difficult.

In practical language, evidence frustration describes conduct that makes the other side’s proof more difficult by withholding, altering or destroying evidence. The label does not mean that every missing file proves deliberate frustration.

Section 272 ZPO requires the court to assess factual allegations by carefully considering the hearing and evidence. It must state the circumstances and reasoning leading to its conclusion. A gap therefore has to be assessed together with the remaining evidence.

Identify the record first. Is it a maintenance report, invoice, handover record, internal notice or digital file? Only then can its absence be assessed in relation to the claim.

State the fact it should prove. An inspection report may document the condition of an item at a particular time. An invoice may show repair work and its price. Neither record automatically answers the entire causation question.

The more precisely the issue is defined, the easier it is to assess whether the record is material. A generally expected file with no clear link to the loss is not enough to establish deliberate frustration.

A mere assumption that records exist somewhere is not enough for production by the opponent. Section 303 ZPO requires a sufficiently precise description of the contents and of the facts to be proved. The circumstances making possession by the opponent probable must also be stated.

Relevant indications may include earlier transmissions, file names, logs, witness accounts or a documented work process. The person who created, checked or archived the record may also be important.

Describe the period, type of record, author, storage location and fact in issue. A blanket demand for all internal documents is usually too broad for focused evidential work.

Under section 304 ZPO, production cannot be refused in certain situations. This includes cases where the opponent relied on the document for proof, is obliged under civil law to hand it over or where the document is common to both parties by its contents.

Section 305 ZPO lists exceptions for other documents, including family matters, recognised duties of confidentiality and business secrets. Other equally important reasons may also justify refusal.

The issue is therefore not only whether a document exists. Its contents, the parties’ legal relationship and the specific reason for requesting production must also be considered.

Where a record was changed or is no longer available, reconstruct the timing as precisely as possible. When was the original created? Who could access it? When was the gap discovered? Were there backups or earlier versions?

Keep emails, attachments, file names, version histories, photographs and messages concerning retention. Substitute evidence does not automatically prove the original contents, but it can explain the evidential history.

Inconsistent documentation is not automatically deliberate deception. Together with other circumstances, however, it may affect the court’s assessment. State only what the available indications support.

The loss of a record does not automatically remove the claimant’s burden to establish the facts supporting the claim. In contractual damages matters, section 1298 ABGB may have specific consequences for proof of fault. That is separate from proving loss and its causal connection with the breach.

The person with access to a record should explain possession and retention. The party requesting production should define the fact in issue and the circumstances indicating possession. Fair evidence does not require blanket disclosure of every internal communication.

Your own records matter too. If photographs, notices or invoices were not retained, explain the gap and produce substitute evidence in an organised form. A credible gap is not the same as an unsupported accusation against the other side.

Even if a missing record would support an event, causation and the amount of loss still require separate assessment. A maintenance report may confirm a defect but not which repair costs it caused. An invoice may prove payment but not automatically necessity or legal attribution.

Separate each head of loss, such as repair, replacement, treatment, loss of earnings, loss of use or other disadvantages. State which record is missing, what substitute exists and which technical question remains open.

Where several causes are possible, the missing record cannot replace the causal chain. The initial condition, event, later development and specific disadvantage still have to be presented coherently.

Prepare a document list showing the record, period, presumed holder, fact in issue and available substitute evidence. Note whether you requested it and what response followed.

Keep communications in their original form and record when a file or paper record was first mentioned. For digital material, unchanged exports and reliable file information are more useful than a later summary.

For legal assessment, keep the legal basis, fact in issue, production question, possible exceptions and head of loss separate. The overview of evidence, negotiation and limitation supports this preparation.

A gap in the records does not speak for itself. The court considers which party would normally retain the information, whether the document's existence is supported and whether there is a credible explanation for its loss. The remaining chronology and the parties' statements also matter.

Where a fact lies particularly within one party's sphere, proximity to the evidence may matter when the burden of presenting and proving facts is assessed. This does not create a general duty to prove that the opponent did not engage in conduct. The fact in issue remains decisive.

For preparation, keep separate what is definitely documented, what is only assumed and what conclusion is said to follow. This makes the evidential issue reviewable without filling the gap with an unsupported intention.

Even when an original is missing, several independent sources may clarify the sequence. These can include contemporaneous emails, photographs with reliable timing, calendar or work records, payment evidence and statements from people who saw the condition or handover themselves.

Link each substitute record to a specific statement. An email may show that a problem was reported. A payment record may confirm an expense. A witness may describe the condition at a particular time. The legal conclusion drawn from these pieces must still be assessed separately.

Keep information that points in different directions as well. An open discrepancy can be examined professionally. If conflicting versions are not explained, however, the assessment of the entire record may become more difficult.

Receive new articles and legal information from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.