Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1001

Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1001

The Court acceded to the application made on behalf of Mr Elbaum and D&E because the most expedient course was to inspect the documents in the supplementary list and rule document by document, applying the principles used in the earlier privilege ruling. The claims were sustained or rejected as recorded in the schedule to Ruling No 8.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Privilege of Subpoenaed Documents Produced by Deacons Lawyers / Further Ruling on Legal Professional Privilege Claims Over Additional Subpoenaed Documents
Outcome
Application to advance supplementary privilege claims allowed; privilege claims sustained or rejected as set out in the schedule to Ruling No 8.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenaed Documents' 'inspection of Documents' 'non Party Privilege Claim']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenaed Documents' 'inspection of Documents' 'non Party Privilege Claim']

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

Ruling on Privilege of Subpoenaed Documents Produced by Deacons Lawyers / Further Ruling on Legal Professional Privilege Claims Over Additional Subpoenaed Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Elbaum and D&E should be permitted to agitate claims of privilege over additional documents produced on subpoena by Deacons Lawyers that were not included in the modified Walker Herceg Schedule.' 'Whether the claims of legal professional privilege over each document in the supplementary list should be sustained or rejected.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court acceded to the application made on behalf of Mr Elbaum and D&E because the most expedient course was to inspect the documents in the supplementary list and rule document by document, applying the principles used in the earlier privilege ruling. The claims were sustained or rejected as recorded in the schedule to Ruling No 8.

Court Disposition

Application to advance supplementary privilege claims allowed; privilege claims sustained or rejected as set out in the schedule to Ruling No 8.

Orders

  • ['The Court acceded to the application made on behalf of Mr Elbaum and D&E to agitate claims of privilege over additional documents.' 'The claims of privilege over the documents in the supplementary list were sustained or rejected in accordance with the schedule to Ruling No 8.']