Sparnon & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 684

Sparnon & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 684

The documents were not privileged from production because the evidence, particularly that of Mr Peterson, showed they were brought into existence to confirm the outbreak of bacterial wilt, enable management and containment measures, and brief senior officers, not for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice or for the sole purpose of litigation. On the evidence before the Court, the documents were also not shown to have been made for the dominant purpose of the first respondent being provided with professional legal services, so s 119 did not provide a basis for refusing production under O 15 r 15.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Production of Discovered Documents and Claims of Legal Professional Privilege / Reasons for Ruling on Pre Trial Discovery and Inspection Issues During a Trial Before Another Judge
Outcome
The first respondent's claim for legal professional privilege failed, and its alternative contention that the documents should not be produced for inspection also failed; counsel were to be heard as to any orders.
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege Under S 119 Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'litigation Privilege' 'discovery and Inspection of Documents' 'federal Court Rules O 15 R 15' 'sole Purpose Test' 'dominant Purpose Test']
['evidence' 'practice and Procedure' 'legal Professional Privilege'] ['client Legal Privilege Under S 119 Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'litigation Privilege' 'discovery and Inspection of Documents' 'federal Court Rules O 15 R 15' 'sole Purpose Test' 'dominant Purpose Test']

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 Concerning Production of Discovered Documents and Claims of Legal Professional Privilege / Reasons for Ruling on Pre Trial Discovery and Inspection Issues During a Trial Before Another Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two documents, the Gillings Report and a copy of a transparency prepared from computer records, were privileged from production on the ground of legal professional privilege.' 'Whether s 119 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) directly applied to pre-trial production of discovered documents.' 'Whether, even if common law legal professional privilege failed, the Court should decline to order production for inspection under O 15 r 15 of the Federal Court Rules because evidence of the contents might be inadmissible at trial under s 119.']

Ratio Decidendi

The documents were not privileged from production because the evidence, particularly that of Mr Peterson, showed they were brought into existence to confirm the outbreak of bacterial wilt, enable management and containment measures, and brief senior officers, not for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice or for the sole purpose of litigation. On the evidence before the Court, the documents were also not shown to have been made for the dominant purpose of the first respondent being provided with professional legal services, so s 119 did not provide a basis for refusing production under O 15 r 15.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's claim for legal professional privilege failed, and its alternative contention that the documents should not be produced for inspection also failed; counsel were to be heard as to any orders.

Orders

  • ['The claim for legal professional privilege made in respect of the two documents must fail.' 'The contention made on behalf of the first respondent that the documents should not be produced for inspection even if not protected by legal professional privilege must fail.' 'The Court will hear counsel as to the...