Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1349

Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1349

The privileged documents in Categories 3 and 4 were not required to be produced because any legal advice concerning the withdrawal of the pleading admission or the effect of the 22 February 2000 letter was received after the relevant February or March 2000 events and could not have contributed to the mCom respondents' alleged belief or reliance at that earlier time. The explanation for withdrawal of the admission was a pleading mistake by legal advisers, not an implied waiver of privilege over the advice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding With Cross Claim / Reasons for Ruling (no 14) on Applicant's Call for Production of Privileged Documents in Categories 3 and 4
Outcome
Temwell's call for production of privileged documents in Categories 3 and 4 was refused.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'production of Documents' 'implied Waiver' 'withdrawal of Admissions in Pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'production of Documents' 'implied Waiver' 'withdrawal of Admissions in Pleadings']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding With Cross Claim / Reasons for Ruling (no 14) on Applicant's Call for Production of Privileged Documents in Categories 3 and 4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the mCom respondents should be required to produce presumptively privileged documents concerning the inclusion and withdrawal of admissions in their defence.' 'Whether reliance on a state of mind or belief about consent to assignment impliedly waived legal professional privilege in legal advice concerning the defence and later withdrawal of admissions.' "Whether legal advice received in or about December 2000, or in late 2002 concerning rectification of a pleading mistake, could bear on the mCom respondents' belief or reliance in February or March 2000."]

Ratio Decidendi

The privileged documents in Categories 3 and 4 were not required to be produced because any legal advice concerning the withdrawal of the pleading admission or the effect of the 22 February 2000 letter was received after the relevant February or March 2000 events and could not have contributed to the mCom respondents' alleged belief or reliance at that earlier time. The explanation for withdrawal of the admission was a pleading mistake by legal advisers, not an implied waiver of privilege over the advice.

Court Disposition

Temwell's call for production of privileged documents in Categories 3 and 4 was refused.

Orders

  • ['The mCom respondents are not required to disclose any documents in Category 3.' 'The mCom respondents are not required to disclose any documents in Category 4.']