Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 467

Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 467

The letter dated 22 January 2010 falls within the ambit of s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), but s 131(2)(h) excludes such communications from the proscription where relevant to costs. Thus, the letter is admissible as evidence on the issue of costs in this proceeding, and the court is at liberty to consider its full contents for that purpose.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Alexander; Applicant: Narasim Anand Raju; Applicant: Philip Hardy; Respondent: The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority; Respondent: Philip Colasante; Respondent: Adrian Sebastiano; Respondent: Adam Sebastiano
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Trial; Determination of Evidentiary Matter on Costs
Outcome
Declaration made
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Admissibility of Settlement Communications, Costs Applications
Evidence Civil Procedure Without Prejudice Privilege Admissibility of Settlement Communications Costs Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Alexander

Applicant

Narasim Anand Raju

Applicant

Philip Hardy

Applicant

The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

Respondent

Philip Colasante

Respondent

Adrian Sebastiano

Respondent

Adam Sebastiano

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Trial; Determination of Evidentiary Matter on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter from Harris Legal dated 22 January 2010 is privileged and inadmissible as evidence on the issue of costs due to 'without prejudice' privilege under s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether an exception under s 131(2)(h) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applies to admit the letter as evidence relevant to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The letter dated 22 January 2010 falls within the ambit of s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), but s 131(2)(h) excludes such communications from the proscription where relevant to costs. Thus, the letter is admissible as evidence on the issue of costs in this proceeding, and the court is at liberty to consider its full contents for that purpose.

Court Disposition

Declaration made

Orders

  • The letter from Harris Legal to Rotstein Lockwood Reddy dated 22 January 2010 is relevant and admissible evidence on the question of costs in the proceeding.