Col Crawford Pty Ltd v Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 87

Col Crawford Pty Ltd v Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 87

The documents, except those for which privilege was no longer asserted and Document 24 in Ex B, were confidential lawyer-client communications made for the dominant purpose of the provision of legal advice in relation to the proceedings, and copying them to Mr Cameron at Deloitte did not destroy privilege....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Procedural Ruling on Client Legal Privilege / Privilege Dispute Concerning Documents Produced on Subpoena by Deloitte
Outcome
Privilege claim upheld
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'litigation Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'subpoena to Produce Documents' 'confidential Lawyer Client Communications Copied to Third Party Adviser']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'litigation Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'subpoena to Produce Documents' 'confidential Lawyer Client Communications Copied to Third Party Adviser']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Commercial List; Procedural Ruling on Client Legal Privilege / Privilege Dispute Concerning Documents Produced on Subpoena by Deloitte

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether communications from the plaintiff's solicitor to the plaintiff and copied to the plaintiff's forensic accountant were subject to client legal privilege." 'Whether any privilege over particular communications was waived by allegations and evidence deployed by the plaintiff in the proceedings.' 'Whether access to documents produced on subpoena by Deloitte should be restricted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The documents, except those for which privilege was no longer asserted and Document 24 in Ex B, were confidential lawyer-client communications made for the dominant purpose of the provision of legal advice in relation to the proceedings, and copying them to Mr Cameron at Deloitte did not destroy privilege. Crawford's allegations about what offer it would have accepted did not waive privilege because none of the relevant documents was directed to or likely to have affected Mr Crawford's state of mind on that matter.

Court Disposition

Privilege claim upheld

Orders

  • ['Access to the documents produced on subpoena by Deloitte, being Court item 201900110928001-S-8, be restricted to the plaintiffs.' "The defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 28 November 2019." 'The parties have liberty to apply in respect of the form of these orders, such liberty is to be...