Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 796

Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 796

The fourth defendant did not provide an evidentiary foundation showing that documents in the dual category were produced or obtained for a dominant purpose of his own capable of attracting client legal privilege, or that he was entitled to joint privilege. For documents claimed solely on his own behalf, the draft defence was privileged, but his own note of a conversation and diary note were not privileged because they were memoranda for his own use and client legal privilege does not arise when a person acts as his own lawyer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Relating to Client Legal Privilege in Proceedings Concerning an Internal Dispute in Two Corporations / Notice of Motion Following Discovery; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
The fourth defendant's claim to privilege on his own behalf was rejected for the dual category and rejected for two of the documents claimed solely on his own behalf; one draft defence was held privileged.
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'dominant Purpose' 'joint Privilege' 'discovery' 'inspection of Documents by the Court' 'self Represented Solicitor Litigant']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'dominant Purpose' 'joint Privilege' 'discovery' 'inspection of Documents by the Court' 'self Represented Solicitor Litigant']

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

Application Relating to Client Legal Privilege in Proceedings Concerning an Internal Dispute in Two Corporations / Notice of Motion Following Discovery; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fourth defendant established client legal privilege on his own behalf over documents identified in discovery.' 'Whether documents in the dual category were produced or obtained for a dominant purpose capable of supporting privilege for the fourth defendant individually or as part of a joint privilege.' 'Whether file notes or diary notes made by a solicitor litigant for his own purposes attract client legal privilege when he acts as his own lawyer.' 'Whether the Court should inspect documents over which privilege was claimed solely by the fourth defendant on his own behalf.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth defendant did not provide an evidentiary foundation showing that documents in the dual category were produced or obtained for a dominant purpose of his own capable of attracting client legal privilege, or that he was entitled to joint privilege. For documents claimed solely on his own behalf, the draft defence was privileged, but his own note of a conversation and diary note were not privileged because they were memoranda for his own use and client legal privilege does not arise when a person acts as his own lawyer.

Court Disposition

The fourth defendant's claim to privilege on his own behalf was rejected for the dual category and rejected for two of the documents claimed solely on his own behalf; one draft defence was held privileged.

Orders

  • ['The claim that the fourth defendant has, in his own right, privilege in the dual category documents is dismissed.' 'The Court inspected the documents concerning which privilege was claimed by the fourth defendant solely on his own behalf.' 'Document cxxxi and document cxliii in the list of 26 April 2005 must be...