O’Shanassy v Turland [2021] NSWDC 642

O’Shanassy v Turland [2021] NSWDC 642

The Court upheld the claim for legal professional privilege in favour of the Council regarding documents discussed in closed session and found no waiver of privilege. The defendant and the Council were successful in seeking orders to set aside parts of the subpoena to the Council. The defendant was also successful in resisting applications to set aside subpoenas issued to Sagacious Holdings Pty Ltd and others. In these circumstances, costs follow the event and are ordered to be assessed forthwith, reflecting both the success and the parties' responsibilities for costs incurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (set Aside Subpoenas and Costs Ruling)
Outcome
Costs applications resolved by interlocutory order; claims to privilege upheld, applications to set aside subpoenas substantially resolved in favour of Council and defendant.
Legal Topics
['subpoena' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs' 'defamation' 'oppression' 'relevance']
['civil Procedure'] ['subpoena' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs' 'defamation' 'oppression' 'relevance']

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application (set Aside Subpoenas and Costs Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents sought under subpoena should be produced, considering claims of legal professional privilege, relevance, oppression, and waiver of privilege' 'Whether costs in respect of applications to set aside subpoenas should be payable forthwith and by whom']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the claim for legal professional privilege in favour of the Council regarding documents discussed in closed session and found no waiver of privilege. The defendant and the Council were successful in seeking orders to set aside parts of the subpoena to the Council. The defendant was also successful in resisting applications to set aside subpoenas issued to Sagacious Holdings Pty Ltd and others. In these circumstances, costs follow the event and are ordered to be assessed forthwith, reflecting both the success and the parties' responsibilities for costs incurred.

Court Disposition

Costs applications resolved by interlocutory order; claims to privilege upheld, applications to set aside subpoenas substantially resolved in favour of Council and defendant.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and UCPR r 42.7, the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the Council and of the defendant of and incidental to the application by the Council and the defendant to set aside the plaintiff's subpoena to the Council, such costs to be assessed forthwith." 'Pursuant...