GR v Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWSC 721

GR v Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWSC 721

The material over which privilege is claimed does not satisfy the requirements for legal professional privilege at common law or under s 120 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as it does not consist of confidential communications or documents created for the dominant purpose of legal advice or the conduct of the present proceeding, but instead relates to other matters. Accordingly, the privilege claim is misconceived and the first and second defendants should be granted access to the material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in an Appeal Under the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 (nsw) / Interlocutory Determination on Claim for Privilege Over Subpoenaed Documents
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for privilege over the subpoenaed documents is rejected; access granted to the first and second defendants.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Communications' 'subpoena' 'disclosure of Documents']
['evidence' 'child Protection' 'procedural Law'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Communications' 'subpoena' 'disclosure of Documents']

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

Procedural Ruling in an Appeal Under the Children and Young Persons (care and Protection) Act 1998 (nsw) / Interlocutory Determination on Claim for Privilege Over Subpoenaed Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents produced by the Queensland Police Service under subpoena are subject to client legal privilege or confidential communication privilege and should be withheld from the first and second defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The material over which privilege is claimed does not satisfy the requirements for legal professional privilege at common law or under s 120 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as it does not consist of confidential communications or documents created for the dominant purpose of legal advice or the conduct of the present proceeding, but instead relates to other matters. Accordingly, the privilege claim is misconceived and the first and second defendants should be granted access to the material.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for privilege over the subpoenaed documents is rejected; access granted to the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the first and second defendants to have access to the material produced by the Queensland Police Service in this proceeding in answer to the subpoena issued on 4 March 2021.']