Grundy, Arthur Henry & Anor v Lewis, John Bertram & Ors [1998] FCA 1537

Grundy, Arthur Henry & Anor v Lewis, John Bertram & Ors [1998] FCA 1537

Disclosure of legal advice occurred under compulsion of law and was not consented to for purposes of s122(1); the applicants did not put in contest an issue requiring reference to legal advice for resolution; thus client privilege remains. s122(6) was not satisfied, as documents were not used specifically to revive memory of any particular fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Application / During Trial
Outcome
Application for production of documents refused.
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'document Production' 'memory Revival of Witness']
['evidence'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'document Production' 'memory Revival of Witness']

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

Application / During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether client legal privilege was waived' 'Whether disclosure of the substance of legal advice occurred' 'Whether parties consented to disclosure for purposes of s122(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether party put in contest an issue incapable of fair resolution without reference to relevant legal advice' 'Whether documents used to revive memory of witness']

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of legal advice occurred under compulsion of law and was not consented to for purposes of s122(1); the applicants did not put in contest an issue requiring reference to legal advice for resolution; thus client privilege remains. s122(6) was not satisfied, as documents were not used specifically to revive memory of any particular fact.

Court Disposition

Application for production of documents refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for production of documents is refused.' "Mr Arthur Grundy may not be cross-examined as to the contents of the barrister's opinion."]