Meadon P/L & Anor v. Nommack (No. 247) P/L & Ors [1994] FCA 804

Meadon P/L & Anor v. Nommack (No. 247) P/L & Ors [1994] FCA 804

With the exception of Document 3, the documents attracted legal professional privilege as they were created solely for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice or for legal proceedings. Privilege was not waived merely because the documents were in the possession of agents of the respondents, as agents are not strangers for these purposes and there was no evidence of intentional or implied waiver.

Parties
First Applicant: MEADON PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 003 613 661); Second Applicants: PETER KENNEDY & FIONA KENNEDY; First Respondent: NOMMACK (NO 247) PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER & MANAGER APPOINTED)(IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) (A.C.N. 003 309 171); Second Respondent: JOHN P SMITH
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application (inspection of Documents; Privilege) / Interlocutory (claim for Privilege) Decision
Outcome
Claim for inspection of documents dismissed (except for Document 3); respondents' claim of privilege upheld; applicants to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Inspection of Documents, Subpoena Compliance
Evidence Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Waiver of Privilege Inspection of Documents Subpoena Compliance

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEADON PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 003 613 661)

First Applicant

PETER KENNEDY & FIONA KENNEDY

Second Applicants

NOMMACK (NO 247) PTY LIMITED (RECEIVER & MANAGER APPOINTED)(IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) (A.C.N. 003 309 171)

First Respondent

JOHN P SMITH

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (inspection of Documents; Privilege) / Interlocutory (claim for Privilege) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to claim legal professional privilege over certain documents produced under subpoena by third parties.
  2. 2 Whether any privilege in these documents has been waived.

Ratio Decidendi

With the exception of Document 3, the documents attracted legal professional privilege as they were created solely for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice or for legal proceedings. Privilege was not waived merely because the documents were in the possession of agents of the respondents, as agents are not strangers for these purposes and there was no evidence of intentional or implied waiver.

Court Disposition

Claim for inspection of documents dismissed (except for Document 3); respondents' claim of privilege upheld; applicants to pay costs.

Orders

  • With the exception of Document 3, the applicants' claim to inspect the documents is dismissed and the respondents' claim of privilege is upheld.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of the hearing of 27 October 1994.