Thompson v Rosen [2020] NSWSC 481

Thompson v Rosen [2020] NSWSC 481

Having examined the documents in paragraphs 10(c), 10(e), 10(h) and 12(b) of Ms Jancauskas' affidavit, the Court held that Shine Lawyers' concessions that those documents were unlikely to be privileged were appropriate, and the second defendant should have access to them for inspection. Further particularisation by date was not required. Because the merits of the costs dispute were equally balanced, the costs of the motion were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Ruling Concerning Subpoenaed Documents and Claims of Lawyer/client Privilege / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Access and Inspection, Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Limited access for inspection granted; costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'lawyer/client Privilege' 'inspection of Documents' 'costs in the Cause' 'limitation Defence']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs'] ['subpoenas' 'lawyer/client Privilege' 'inspection of Documents' 'costs in the Cause' 'limitation Defence']

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

Civil Procedure Ruling Concerning Subpoenaed Documents and Claims of Lawyer/client Privilege / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Access and Inspection, Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether lawyer/client privilege applied to documents produced by Shine Lawyers in Packet S-9.' 'Whether the second defendant should be granted access to inspect documents described in paragraphs 10(c), 10(e), 10(h) and 12(b) of the affidavit of Rebecca Jancauskas affirmed 14 October 2019.' 'Whether further particularisation of mesh class action documents by date was required.' 'Whether the second defendant should receive costs of his motion for access and inspection.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having examined the documents in paragraphs 10(c), 10(e), 10(h) and 12(b) of Ms Jancauskas' affidavit, the Court held that Shine Lawyers' concessions that those documents were unlikely to be privileged were appropriate, and the second defendant should have access to them for inspection. Further particularisation by date was not required. Because the merits of the costs dispute were equally balanced, the costs of the motion were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Limited access for inspection granted; costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Grant the second defendant access to the documents referred to or described in paragraphs 10(c), (e) and (h) and 12(b) of the affidavit of Rebecca Jancauskas affirmed 14 October 2019.' "Order that the costs of and incidental to the second defendant's notice of motion filed on 4 July 2019 be the costs in the cause."]