McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 10) [2011] FCA 1200

McHugh v Australian Jockey Club Limited (No 10) [2011] FCA 1200

The documents requested in paragraph two of the notice to produce are relevant, and legal professional privilege attaching to them has been waived on the basis of inconsistency in the conduct of the third respondent, particularly in light of Mann v Carnell. The application for relief is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Bruce McHugh; First Respondent: Australian Jockey Club Limited; Second Respondent: Victoria Racing Club Limited; Third Respondent: Australian Racing Board Limited; Fifth Respondent: Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited; Sixth Respondent: Australian Turf Club Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice to Produce and Scope of Cross Examination
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Notice to Produce, Relevance of Evidence
Evidence Privilege Legal Professional Privilege Waiver of Privilege Notice to Produce Relevance of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce McHugh

Applicant

Australian Jockey Club Limited

First Respondent

Victoria Racing Club Limited

Second Respondent

Australian Racing Board Limited

Third Respondent

Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Limited

Fifth Respondent

Australian Turf Club Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice to Produce and Scope of Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph two of notice to produce should be set aside due to privilege or irrelevance
  2. 2 Whether legal professional privilege attaching to certain documents has been waived
  3. 3 Whether to restrict cross-examination concerning possible impropriety by Racing Committee members

Ratio Decidendi

The documents requested in paragraph two of the notice to produce are relevant, and legal professional privilege attaching to them has been waived on the basis of inconsistency in the conduct of the third respondent, particularly in light of Mann v Carnell. The application for relief is refused.

Court Disposition

Relief refused

Orders

  • The relief sought in paragraphs two and three of the interlocutory application dated 13 October 2011 be refused.