Hillier v Martin (No 19) [2024] FCA 210

Hillier v Martin (No 19) [2024] FCA 210

Prima facie evidence of iniquity, sufficient to displace legal professional privilege, was established on the materials, and the NW Parties, having claimed privilege on behalf of Ms Martin, must produce the documents for inspection. The submission for recusal based on actual or apprehended bias failed, as there was no cogent evidence of actual bias, no findings made in prior related proceedings, and no facts that might lead a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Ongoing Civil Proceedings / Post Discovery, Decision on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
LPP application granted; recusal application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'crime/fraud Exception to Privilege' 'recusal for Actual or Apprehended Bias' 'production and Inspection of Documents' 'fiduciary Duties' 'equitable Relief' 'accounting' 'trusts']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'equity' 'corporations Law' 'trusts Law'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'crime/fraud Exception to Privilege' 'recusal for Actual or Apprehended Bias' 'production and Inspection of Documents' 'fiduciary Duties' 'equitable Relief' 'accounting' 'trusts']

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 Applications in Ongoing Civil Proceedings / Post Discovery, Decision on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents claimed to be subject to legal professional privilege should be produced on the ground of iniquity (prima facie crime, fraud, or similar wrongdoing) so as to displace privilege' 'Whether the presiding judge should be recused for actual or apprehended bias']

Ratio Decidendi

Prima facie evidence of iniquity, sufficient to displace legal professional privilege, was established on the materials, and the NW Parties, having claimed privilege on behalf of Ms Martin, must produce the documents for inspection. The submission for recusal based on actual or apprehended bias failed, as there was no cogent evidence of actual bias, no findings made in prior related proceedings, and no facts that might lead a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias.

Court Disposition

LPP application granted; recusal application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The documents identified as subject to a claim to legal professional privilege in the Lists of Documents served by the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents on 2 June 2023 are not the subject of legal professional privilege.' 'The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents are to produce for inspection by the...