Rodriguez & Sons v Queensland Bulk Water Supply authority t/as Seqwater (No 14) [2018] NSWSC 939

Rodriguez & Sons v Queensland Bulk Water Supply authority t/as Seqwater (No 14) [2018] NSWSC 939

The disputed documents were privileged because, viewed in their objective context, they were confidential communications or documents made or prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice about the USACE review in circumstances where litigation was anticipated. Mr Tibaldi's drafts were prepared to obtain advice from his solicitor, disclosure of advice to Mr Malone did not waive privilege because the communication was confidential and involved a common interest, and Seqwater's communications with Allens, internal communications, and insurer-related communications were part of obtaining legal advice on its response to the review. Redaction would provide no useful...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling on Client Legal Privilege Claims Arising From a Notice to Produce in Negligence Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Disputed Claims for Client Legal Privilege Over Documents Sought by Notice to Produce Filed on 13 April 2018
Outcome
Claims for client legal privilege upheld.
Legal Topics
['dominant Purpose Test' 'legal Advice Privilege' 'waiver or Loss of Privilege' 'common Interest Privilege' 'confidential Communications and Documents' 'notice to Produce']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'client Legal Privilege'] ['dominant Purpose Test' 'legal Advice Privilege' 'waiver or Loss of Privilege' 'common Interest Privilege' 'confidential Communications and Documents' 'notice to Produce']

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

Procedural Ruling on Client Legal Privilege Claims Arising From a Notice to Produce in Negligence Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Disputed Claims for Client Legal Privilege Over Documents Sought by Notice to Produce Filed on 13 April 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents created or communicated by Mr Tibaldi were prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice and were protected by client legal privilege.' "Whether disclosure of Ms Crowther's legal advice by Mr Tibaldi to Mr Malone resulted in loss of privilege." "Whether Seqwater's communications with Allens and internal communications about the USACE review were made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice." "Whether communications between Seqwater and its insurer's solicitor were protected notwithstanding disclosure because of common interest." 'Whether any non-privileged parts of the documents should be produced by redaction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed documents were privileged because, viewed in their objective context, they were confidential communications or documents made or prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice about the USACE review in circumstances where litigation was anticipated. Mr Tibaldi's drafts were prepared to obtain advice from his solicitor, disclosure of advice to Mr Malone did not waive privilege because the communication was confidential and involved a common interest, and Seqwater's communications with Allens, internal communications, and insurer-related communications were part of obtaining legal advice on its response to the review. Redaction would provide no useful...

Court Disposition

Claims for client legal privilege upheld.

Orders

  • ['Uphold the claim for privilege made by Mr Tibaldi in respect of 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 65.' 'Uphold the claim for privilege made by the first defendant in respect of documents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 36, 37, 38 and 40.'...