Sampi v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1862

Sampi v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1862

The appropriate case management step at this stage is to ensure compliance with the Federal Court guidelines for expert witnesses regarding disclosure of materials used, before determining whether subpoenas should issue. Privilege may protect certain communications, but generally not all documents generated by experts in preparing their reports. The application for subpoenas is stood over generally pending such compliance.

Parties
Applicants: Paul Sampi and others; First Respondents: State of Western Australia, Premier of Western Australia, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Education, Minister for Environment, Minister for Fisheries, Minister for Health, Minister for Lands, Minister for Mines and Aboriginal Lands Trust; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: Shire of Broome; Fourth Respondents: A R J Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (Fourth Respondents); Fifth Respondents: Dawn Bessarab, Leisk Bessarab and Helen Bessarab; Sixth Respondent: Stirling Resources NL; Seventh Respondent: Telstra Corporation Ltd; Eighth Respondents: Bruce Richard Brown and Lyndon Mayfield, Brown (Cygnet Bay Pearls)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure (subpoena Application) / Interlocutory (before Trial)
Outcome
Application for leave to issue subpoenas stood over generally
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Legal Professional Privilege, Subpoenas, Case Management
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Subpoenas Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Sampi and others

Applicants

State of Western Australia, Premier of Western Australia, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Education, Minister for Environment, Minister for Fisheries, Minister for Health, Minister for Lands, Minister for Mines and Aboriginal Lands Trust

First Respondents

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Shire of Broome

Third Respondent

A R J Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (Fourth Respondents)

Fourth Respondents

Dawn Bessarab, Leisk Bessarab and Helen Bessarab

Fifth Respondents

Stirling Resources NL

Sixth Respondent

Telstra Corporation Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Bruce Richard Brown and Lyndon Mayfield, Brown (Cygnet Bay Pearls)

Eighth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure (subpoena Application) / Interlocutory (before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subpoenas should issue for production of expert's field notes and related material prior to the hearing
  2. 2 Whether legal professional privilege attaches to documents created by experts preparing reports for the litigation
  3. 3 Appropriate timing and case management for production of such documents

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate case management step at this stage is to ensure compliance with the Federal Court guidelines for expert witnesses regarding disclosure of materials used, before determining whether subpoenas should issue. Privilege may protect certain communications, but generally not all documents generated by experts in preparing their reports. The application for subpoenas is stood over generally pending such compliance.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to issue subpoenas stood over generally

Orders

  • Solicitors for applicants to specifically draw expert witness guidelines to attention of Ms Glaskin and Mr Bagshaw
  • Solicitors for applicants to request Ms Glaskin and Mr Bagshaw confirm in writing compliance with guidelines, and to the extent not, what steps will be taken, subject to any lawful claim for privilege