Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1078

Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1078

Because Temwell accepted that earlier rejected claims of privilege must also be rejected for copies of the same or corresponding documents, only nine documents produced by Peter Rayner required evaluation; applying the principles from earlier privilege rulings, the Court sustained privilege for two documents and rejected it for seven documents as set out in the schedule.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Claim of Legal Professional Privilege in Respect of Documents Produced on Subpoena / Interlocutory Ruling After Hearing on 1 October 2003
Outcome
Privilege claims were sustained in part and rejected in part according to the schedule to Ruling No 10.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoena' 'expert Evidence' 'document Production' 'discovery']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoena' 'expert Evidence' 'document Production' 'discovery']

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

Ruling on Claim of Legal Professional Privilege in Respect of Documents Produced on Subpoena / Interlocutory Ruling After Hearing on 1 October 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Temwell's claims of legal professional privilege should be sustained over documents produced on subpoena by expert accounting or valuation witness Peter Rayner." "Whether earlier rulings rejecting privilege over documents produced from Meerkin & Apel's custody also required rejection of privilege claims over copies of the same or corresponding documents produced by Peter Rayner."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Temwell accepted that earlier rejected claims of privilege must also be rejected for copies of the same or corresponding documents, only nine documents produced by Peter Rayner required evaluation; applying the principles from earlier privilege rulings, the Court sustained privilege for two documents and rejected it for seven documents as set out in the schedule.

Court Disposition

Privilege claims were sustained in part and rejected in part according to the schedule to Ruling No 10.

Orders

  • ['Privilege rejected for 1/05/02 E-mail A Godfred-Spenning to Rayner.' 'Privilege rejected for 17/07/02 E-mail A Godfred-Spenning to Rayner.' 'Privilege sustained for 20/08/02 E-mail Denise Claessen (Meerkin & Apel) to Rayner and Rundle.' 'Privilege rejected for 20/05/03 Fax from Phil Rundle to Peter Rayner.'...