Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] FCA 1306

Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] FCA 1306

The Court was not satisfied to the requisite degree that Mr Sharp's purpose in communications with ASIC was improper or for financial gain, and therefore the disputed documents remain protected by legal professional privilege; the plaintiffs' application for inspection was refused. Leave to intervene was appropriate given Mr Sharp's central involvement.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Third Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of SK Foods Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Fourth Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of SK Foods Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Fifth Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of SS Farms Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Sixth Plaintiff: Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of SS Farms Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Intervener: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Intervener: Bradley D Sharp; Creditor: SK Foods LP
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Corporations/corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Privileged Documents and Leave to Intervene
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Crime/fraud Exception, Liquidators' Remuneration, Intervention, Release and Settlement Deeds
Corporations Law Insolvency Law Practice and Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Crime/fraud Exception Liquidators' Remuneration Intervention Release and Settlement Deeds

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of SK Foods Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Third Plaintiff

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of SK Foods Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Fourth Plaintiff

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as former joint and several administrators of SS Farms Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Fifth Plaintiff

Ian Russell Lock and John Sheahan as joint and several liquidators of SS Farms Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Sixth Plaintiff

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Intervener

Bradley D Sharp

Intervener

SK Foods LP

Creditor

Procedural Posture

Corporations/corporate Insolvency / Interlocutory Application for Inspection of Privileged Documents and Leave to Intervene

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether legal professional privilege attaches to certain documents produced by ASIC
  2. 2 Whether the crime or fraud exception to legal professional privilege applies
  3. 3 Whether Mr Sharp breached deeds of release and settlement by communications with ASIC

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied to the requisite degree that Mr Sharp's purpose in communications with ASIC was improper or for financial gain, and therefore the disputed documents remain protected by legal professional privilege; the plaintiffs' application for inspection was refused. Leave to intervene was appropriate given Mr Sharp's central involvement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application dated 11 August 2017 be dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs and ASIC be heard as to costs and any other orders.