In the matter of Lorie Najjar & Sons Pty Limited (in liquidation) (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1336

In the matter of Lorie Najjar & Sons Pty Limited (in liquidation) (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1336

The funding agreement in question is not protected by legal professional privilege because it was not established, on the facts and in the absence of supporting evidence, that it was prepared for the dominant purpose of providing legal services or that it disclosed aspects of litigation strategy or legal advice. Further, the funding agreement is relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion whether to stay the winding up, and therefore the notice to produce should not be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Oral Application to Set Aside Notice to Produce
Outcome
Funding agreement to be made available for inspection; oral application to set aside notice to produce refused; other documents (costs agreement/fee letters) not ordered to be produced.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'notice to Produce' 'litigation Funding Agreement' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevancy' 'winding Up']
['procedure' 'evidence' 'corporations'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'notice to Produce' 'litigation Funding Agreement' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevancy' 'winding Up']

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 Application / Oral Application to Set Aside Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether litigation funding agreement is protected by legal professional privilege under s 119 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether funding agreement was prepared for the dominant purpose of the client being provided with professional legal services' "Whether funding agreement is relevant to the proceedings and the exercise of the Court's discretion whether to stay winding up"]

Ratio Decidendi

The funding agreement in question is not protected by legal professional privilege because it was not established, on the facts and in the absence of supporting evidence, that it was prepared for the dominant purpose of providing legal services or that it disclosed aspects of litigation strategy or legal advice. Further, the funding agreement is relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion whether to stay the winding up, and therefore the notice to produce should not be set aside.

Court Disposition

Funding agreement to be made available for inspection; oral application to set aside notice to produce refused; other documents (costs agreement/fee letters) not ordered to be produced.

Orders

  • ['Order that the funding agreement included in the envelope marked MFI 1 be made available to the defendants and their legal representatives for inspection.']