Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 156

Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 156

Access was reasonably necessary because the communications with Unisearch in schedule D and the first six documents in schedule F concerned efforts to obtain expert evidence and were needed for a thorough apprehension of the significance or implications of the passage in exhibit VDA stating that it had taken time to get the right expert to say the right things.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Law Application for Access to Documents / Application After Judgment Delivered on 14 November 2008
Outcome
Access to documents granted.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'client Legal Privilege' 'evidence Act 1995 S 126' 'proper Understanding of Document Tendered']
['civil Law' 'evidence'] ['access to Documents' 'client Legal Privilege' 'evidence Act 1995 S 126' 'proper Understanding of Document Tendered']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Law Application for Access to Documents / Application After Judgment Delivered on 14 November 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether privileged documents referred to in Mr Bates' affidavit should be accessible under Evidence Act 1995 s 126." 'Whether access to documents in schedule D and the first six documents in schedule F was reasonably necessary to enable a proper understanding of the email tendered as exhibit VDA.']

Ratio Decidendi

Access was reasonably necessary because the communications with Unisearch in schedule D and the first six documents in schedule F concerned efforts to obtain expert evidence and were needed for a thorough apprehension of the significance or implications of the passage in exhibit VDA stating that it had taken time to get the right expert to say the right things.

Court Disposition

Access to documents granted.

Orders

  • ["Access granted to the documents contained in schedule D and the first six documents referred to in schedule F of Mr Bates' affidavit of 29 October 2008."]