Tirango Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v Dairy Vale Foods Ltd [1998] FCA 724

Tirango Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v Dairy Vale Foods Ltd [1998] FCA 724

The copy letter sent by the applicant to the accountant remained privileged because the communication occurred in circumstances giving rise to an implied obligation of confidentiality; s 122(2) preserved the privilege, and s 122(4) did not operate to destroy it in this case.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Tirango Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 006 777 537); Applicant/cross Respondent: Allen James Williams; Applicant/cross Respondent: Pauline Anne Stockman; Respondent/cross Claimant: Dairy Vale Foods Limited (ACN 065 923 597)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling / Interlocutory (reasons for Decision on Privilege)
Outcome
Privilege upheld; document not to be adduced in evidence
Legal Topics
Client Legal Privilege, Confidential Communications, Waiver of Privilege
Evidence Client Legal Privilege Confidential Communications Waiver of Privilege

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tirango Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 006 777 537)

Applicant/cross Respondent

Allen James Williams

Applicant/cross Respondent

Pauline Anne Stockman

Applicant/cross Respondent

Dairy Vale Foods Limited (ACN 065 923 597)

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Evidence Ruling / Interlocutory (reasons for Decision on Privilege)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a copy of a privileged document sent to a third party is still privileged under Pt 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the act of providing a copy to an accountant results in waiver of privilege under ss 122(2) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The copy letter sent by the applicant to the accountant remained privileged because the communication occurred in circumstances giving rise to an implied obligation of confidentiality; s 122(2) preserved the privilege, and s 122(4) did not operate to destroy it in this case.

Court Disposition

Privilege upheld; document not to be adduced in evidence

Orders

  • Cross-examination on the document in issue is not permitted because of client legal privilege.