Candacal Pty Ltd v Industry Research & Development Board [2005] FCA 1276

Candacal Pty Ltd v Industry Research & Development Board [2005] FCA 1276

It is in the interests of justice to clarify paragraph [95] of the reasons before extracting any order, to avoid ambiguity as to the terms of discovery required for certain documents, and to confirm that claims of client legal privilege are not maintainable over passages that do not disclose the substance of legal...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Candacal Pty Ltd; Applicant: Erinbol Pty Ltd; Applicant: Leleque Pty Ltd; Applicant: Kenasha Pty Ltd; Applicant: Waslyn Pty Ltd; Applicant: Maygain Pty Ltd; Applicant: Gapmint Pty Ltd; Applicant: Trevyn Pty Ltd; Applicant: Nardia Pty Ltd; Applicant: IDGCC No.1 Investments Pty Ltd; Applicant: Rombar Pty Ltd; Respondent: The Industry Research and Development Board
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Post Reasons Clarification and Order Extraction
Outcome
Application for clarification granted; discovery orders made in clarified terms.
Legal Topics
Clarification of Reasons, Discovery, Client Legal Privilege
Practice and Procedure Clarification of Reasons Discovery Client Legal 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Candacal Pty Ltd

Applicant

Erinbol Pty Ltd

Applicant

Leleque Pty Ltd

Applicant

Kenasha Pty Ltd

Applicant

Waslyn Pty Ltd

Applicant

Maygain Pty Ltd

Applicant

Gapmint Pty Ltd

Applicant

Trevyn Pty Ltd

Applicant

Nardia Pty Ltd

Applicant

IDGCC No.1 Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Rombar Pty Ltd

Applicant

The Industry Research and Development Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Post Reasons Clarification and Order Extraction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clarification of ambiguity in reasons for judgment is necessary prior to extraction of order
  2. 2 Whether client legal privilege claims are maintainable over certain discovered documents

Ratio Decidendi

It is in the interests of justice to clarify paragraph [95] of the reasons before extracting any order, to avoid ambiguity as to the terms of discovery required for certain documents, and to confirm that claims of client legal privilege are not maintainable over passages that do not disclose the substance of legal advice.

Court Disposition

Application for clarification granted; discovery orders made in clarified terms.

Orders

  • On or before 23 September 2005 the respondent must make available for inspection by the applicants the redacted portions of the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the respondent's Third List of Documents, as detailed in the judgment, with exceptions for material still subject to client legal privilege as...