Anbu v Vulcanite Pty Limited [2015] FCA 283

Anbu v Vulcanite Pty Limited [2015] FCA 283

There was no implied or express waiver of legal professional privilege by Mr Anbu because neither the pleadings nor affidavit referred to or relied upon the fact or content of legal advice, and partial disclosures in pre-litigation emails did not amount to conduct inconsistent with confidentiality or fairness as privilege-holder; hence, respondents were not entitled to access the privileged documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Pre Trial Interlocutory Application / Decision on Privilege Waiver Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'implied Waiver' 'partial Disclosure' 'pre Trial Procedures']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'consumer Law' 'corporations Law'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'implied Waiver' 'partial Disclosure' 'pre Trial Procedures']

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

Pre Trial Interlocutory Application / Decision on Privilege Waiver Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether legal professional privilege over the applicant's documents had been impliedly or expressly waived by pleadings, affidavit evidence or partial disclosure of legal advice"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no implied or express waiver of legal professional privilege by Mr Anbu because neither the pleadings nor affidavit referred to or relied upon the fact or content of legal advice, and partial disclosures in pre-litigation emails did not amount to conduct inconsistent with confidentiality or fairness as privilege-holder; hence, respondents were not entitled to access the privileged documents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' application for access to documents in the applicant's schedules of privileged documents is dismissed." 'The respondents should pay the costs of and associated with this pre-trial application.']