Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v The Partners, Clayton Utz & Ors [2003] FCA 1265

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v The Partners, Clayton Utz & Ors [2003] FCA 1265

On the uncontested evidence and submissions, there was a colour of illegality about the transaction on which Mr Davis was asked to advise. Accordingly, the communications concerning the subject matter of the 1 June 2000 letter were not subject to legal professional privilege, and it was appropriate to order Mr Davis to answer the questions put to him at the examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 289(3) of the Superannuation Industry (supervision) Act 1993 (cth) for Inquiry Into Non Compliance and for Orders and Declarations / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in relation to the third respondent.
Legal Topics
['non Compliance With Statutory Examination Requirement' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'in House Asset Rules' 'colour of Illegality Exception to Privilege']
['superannuation Regulation' 'administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['non Compliance With Statutory Examination Requirement' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'in House Asset Rules' 'colour of Illegality Exception to 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

Application Under S 289(3) of the Superannuation Industry (supervision) Act 1993 (cth) for Inquiry Into Non Compliance and for Orders and Declarations / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third respondent should be ordered under s 289(3) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) to answer questions put to him at an examination conducted under Part 25 Division 5 of the Act.' 'Whether communications concerning the subject matter of the letter dated 1 June 2000 from Velos & Davis Lawyers to M V Anderson & Co are subject to legal professional privilege.' 'Whether the evidence disclosed a colour of illegality about the transaction on which Mr Davis was asked to advise.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the uncontested evidence and submissions, there was a colour of illegality about the transaction on which Mr Davis was asked to advise. Accordingly, the communications concerning the subject matter of the 1 June 2000 letter were not subject to legal professional privilege, and it was appropriate to order Mr Davis to answer the questions put to him at the examination.

Court Disposition

Application granted in relation to the third respondent.

Orders

  • ['The third respondent answer the questions put to him at the examination conducted under Part 25 Division 5 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) on 12 June 2003.' 'Communications concerning the subject matter of the letter dated 1 June 2000 from Velos & Davis Lawyers to M V Anderson & Co are...