Primmer v Alfred [2008] FCA 485

Primmer v Alfred [2008] FCA 485

Leave to appeal was refused because the reasons of the Federal Magistrate were not attended with sufficient doubt and there was no substantial injustice in depriving the applicants of the documents over which privilege was claimed.

Parties
First Applicant: Peter Primmer; Second Applicant: Forrestry Construction; Respondent: Gregory Charles Alfred
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Privilege, Discovery, Leave to Appeal
Employment Law Civil Procedure Privilege Discovery Leave to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Primmer

First Applicant

Forrestry Construction

Second Applicant

Gregory Charles Alfred

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents over which privilege was claimed were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the reasons of the Federal Magistrate were not attended with sufficient doubt and there was no substantial injustice in depriving the applicants of the documents over which privilege was claimed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be refused.