Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 1358

Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 1358

Privilege was upheld for the majority of documents as inspection satisfied the Court they were created for the dominant purpose of litigation reasonably contemplated or commenced, notwithstanding weaknesses in the supporting evidence. Privilege was waived in relation to documents YTL-2, YTL-3, and SA-5 due to partial disclosure rendering their redacted content unintelligible and inconsistent with maintaining privilege; the waiver did not extend to other referenced documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Discovery Orders; Determination of Claims for Privilege and Waiver
Outcome
Privilege upheld in respect of most documents; waiver found as to YTL-2, YTL-3, and SA-5.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege']
['practice and Procedure'] ['discovery' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege']

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

Interlocutory Application / Post Discovery Orders; Determination of Claims for Privilege and Waiver

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Samsung's claim for legal professional privilege over discovery documents is established" 'Whether legal professional privilege has been waived by partial disclosure of certain documents']

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege was upheld for the majority of documents as inspection satisfied the Court they were created for the dominant purpose of litigation reasonably contemplated or commenced, notwithstanding weaknesses in the supporting evidence. Privilege was waived in relation to documents YTL-2, YTL-3, and SA-5 due to partial disclosure rendering their redacted content unintelligible and inconsistent with maintaining privilege; the waiver did not extend to other referenced documents.

Court Disposition

Privilege upheld in respect of most documents; waiver found as to YTL-2, YTL-3, and SA-5.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 of orders made 30 November 2012 vacated.' 'Privilege upheld for documents in Annexure D to second Kim affidavit.' 'Privilege waived for annexures YTL-2 and YTL-3 to Lee witness statement (14 August 2012) and Annexure SA-5 to Ahn witness statement (10 August 2012); unredacted copies to be produced.'...