United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand [2002] NSWSC 1142

United Rural Enterprises v Lopmand [2002] NSWSC 1142

Although the letter was originally privileged and s 122(2) did not remove the privilege because the disclosure to Allen Allen & Hemsley was inferred to be confidential, privilege became unavailable under Evidence Act 1995 s 122(4). Mr Lindsay-Owen authorised Mr Somerset to discuss the matter with Mr Allen, which...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Debt Proceedings With Defendants Disputing Present Obligation to Pay / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Hearing on Objection to a Question in Cross Examination
Outcome
Evidence allowed
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'loss of Privilege' 'evidence Act 1995 S 122' 'consent to Adducing or Disclosing Privileged Evidence' 'disclosure to Former Solicitor']
['evidence' 'legal Professional Privilege'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'loss of Privilege' 'evidence Act 1995 S 122' 'consent to Adducing or Disclosing Privileged Evidence' 'disclosure to Former Solicitor']

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

Debt Proceedings With Defendants Disputing Present Obligation to Pay / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Hearing on Objection to a Question in Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether answering a cross-examination question based on a solicitor's privileged letter would disclose privileged information contrary to ss 118 and 119 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether privilege had been lost under Evidence Act 1995 s 122(1) by consent to adducing the evidence.' 'Whether privilege had been lost under Evidence Act 1995 s 122(2) by knowing and voluntary disclosure of the substance of the evidence.' 'Whether privilege had been lost under Evidence Act 1995 s 122(4) by disclosure of the substance of the evidence with express or implied consent to a person other than a lawyer then acting for the client or party.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the letter was originally privileged and s 122(2) did not remove the privilege because the disclosure to Allen Allen & Hemsley was inferred to be confidential, privilege became unavailable under Evidence Act 1995 s 122(4). Mr Lindsay-Owen authorised Mr Somerset to discuss the matter with Mr Allen, which implied permission to do what was fit to carry out that permission, and the letter was disclosed with express or implied consent to Mr Allen, who was not then acting as lawyer for the plaintiff. The question was therefore allowed.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed

Orders

  • ['The question was allowed.']