Hanks v Admiralty Resources NL (No 2) [2011] FCA 1464

Hanks v Admiralty Resources NL (No 2) [2011] FCA 1464

Privilege over the solicitor's advice was not waived, as neither the substance nor conclusion of the advice was disclosed; s 247A of the Corporations Act does not abrogate privilege; the discretion to order disclosure should not be exercised as the applicant can assess the relevant transaction without the advice and conditions cannot be imposed so as to preserve privilege.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed
Legal Topics
['inspection of Documents' 'waiver of Privilege' 'statutory Interpretation (s 247 a Corporations Act)']
['corporations Law' 'legal Professional Privilege'] ['inspection of Documents' 'waiver of Privilege' 'statutory Interpretation (s 247 a Corporations Act)']

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether legal professional privilege in the solicitor's advice has been waived" 'Whether s 247A of the Corporations Act abrogates privilege' 'Whether discretion should permit access to privileged material']

Ratio Decidendi

Privilege over the solicitor's advice was not waived, as neither the substance nor conclusion of the advice was disclosed; s 247A of the Corporations Act does not abrogate privilege; the discretion to order disclosure should not be exercised as the applicant can assess the relevant transaction without the advice and conditions cannot be imposed so as to preserve privilege.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The Interlocutory Application dated 30 November 2011 is dismissed.' "The Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of the Application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]