Buzzle Operations v Apple Computer Australia [2009] NSWSC 225

Buzzle Operations v Apple Computer Australia [2009] NSWSC 225

Privilege does not attach to affidavits and witness statements that were filed and served in previous proceedings pursuant to Federal Court orders, as such documents lack the required confidentiality under s 117 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and were not prepared for the dominant purpose of the client being provided with professional legal services as required by s 119. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus to prove the dominant purpose, and so privilege is not made out.

Parties
Plaintiff: Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor; Defendant: Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Privilege Objections
Outcome
Plaintiffs not entitled to maintain privilege; access granted to the documents.
Legal Topics
Client Legal Privilege, Confidentiality of Affidavits, Litigation Privilege, Production and Inspection of Documents
Evidence Civil Procedure Client Legal Privilege Confidentiality of Affidavits Litigation Privilege Production and Inspection of Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor

Plaintiff

Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Privilege Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavits and witness statements filed and served in previous Federal Court proceedings are privileged under s 119 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the documents are 'confidential documents' within the meaning of s 117 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of the client being provided with professional legal services as required by s 119 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege does not attach to affidavits and witness statements that were filed and served in previous proceedings pursuant to Federal Court orders, as such documents lack the required confidentiality under s 117 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and were not prepared for the dominant purpose of the client being provided with professional legal services as required by s 119. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus to prove the dominant purpose, and so privilege is not made out.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs not entitled to maintain privilege; access granted to the documents.

Orders

  • Order in accordance with para 2 of the defendants' interlocutory process dated 12 March 2009
  • Defendants entitled to their costs of and incidental to the interlocutory process, subject to submissions on costs