Australian Securities and Invesments Commission v Macdonald (No 8) [2009] NSWSC 12

Australian Securities and Invesments Commission v Macdonald (No 8) [2009] NSWSC 12

Although the Court would otherwise have allowed instructions to be taken from Ms Hellicar before she returned to the witness box because there was a reasonable prospect she would waive privilege and that course would further the just, quick and cheap resolution of the privilege issue, the taking of instructions was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceeding Concerning Objections to Subpoena Production on the Ground of Client Legal Privilege / Interlocutory Ex Tempore Judgment During Cross Examination
Outcome
No order.
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenas' 'waiver of Privilege' 'cross Examination' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings' 'abrogation of Privilege']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenas' 'waiver of Privilege' 'cross Examination' 'just, Quick and Cheap Resolution of Proceedings' 'abrogation of Privilege']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Division Proceeding Concerning Objections to Subpoena Production on the Ground of Client Legal Privilege / Interlocutory Ex Tempore Judgment During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Hellicar's solicitors should be permitted to take instructions from her during cross-examination about whether she maintained or waived a claim to privilege over documents produced under objection in answer to the 3rd subpoena." 'Whether there was a solicitor-client relationship between Ms Hellicar and Atanaskovic Hartnell.' 'Whether any legal professional privilege Ms Hellicar may have had with respect to the documents was abrogated under the James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court would otherwise have allowed instructions to be taken from Ms Hellicar before she returned to the witness box because there was a reasonable prospect she would waive privilege and that course would further the just, quick and cheap resolution of the privilege issue, the taking of instructions was not required because any legal professional privilege she may have had in the documents was abrogated under the James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth).

Court Disposition

No order.

Orders

  • ['The digital content of the reasons for judgment be entered upon the court record database after its inclusion in Caselaw.']