R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No1) [2017] NSWSC 720

R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No1) [2017] NSWSC 720

Although the passage was sufficiently relevant, its dominant purpose was for Mr Maitland, on behalf of ResCo Services Pty Ltd, to seek legal advice from James Stevenson on a matter of law. The passage was therefore inadmissible under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and the Court was not satisfied at that stage that s 125 should displace the privilege.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Passage in Document 31 a 0184 a
Outcome
Passage objected to in document 31A-0184A rejected on the grounds of client legal privilege.
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'relevance' 'client Legal Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'misconduct Exception']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility' 'relevance' 'client Legal Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'misconduct Exception']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Passage in Document 31 a 0184 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the objected-to passage was sufficiently relevant to warrant admission.' 'Whether the objected-to passage was inadmissible because it was subject to client legal privilege under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether client legal privilege was displaced under s 125 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) on the basis of misconduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the passage was sufficiently relevant, its dominant purpose was for Mr Maitland, on behalf of ResCo Services Pty Ltd, to seek legal advice from James Stevenson on a matter of law. The passage was therefore inadmissible under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and the Court was not satisfied at that stage that s 125 should displace the privilege.

Court Disposition

Passage objected to in document 31A-0184A rejected on the grounds of client legal privilege.

Orders

  • ['The objected-to passage is inadmissible by reason of s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']