Kang v Kwan & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 698

Kang v Kwan & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 698

Legal professional privilege was lost under s125 of the Evidence Act 1995 as the communications and documents in question were made in furtherance of a fraud or deliberate abuse of power. The court found reasonable grounds, prima facie, to conclude that property transactions and associated legal communications sought to frustrate enforcement of judgment and defeat creditors, and thus privilege does not prevent adducing of evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Legal Professional Privilege
Outcome
Privilege claim dismissed; documents not prevented from being adduced.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'loss of Privilege' 'fraud' 'abuse of Power' 'alienation of Property' 'discovery']
['evidence' 'property' 'equity'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'loss of Privilege' 'fraud' 'abuse of Power' 'alienation of Property' 'discovery']

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

Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Legal Professional Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether legal professional privilege is lost under s122 or s125 of Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether documents produced lose confidentiality and privilege' 'Whether communications were made in furtherance of fraud or abuse of power' 'Capacity to object to adducing of evidence when clients are out of jurisdiction']

Ratio Decidendi

Legal professional privilege was lost under s125 of the Evidence Act 1995 as the communications and documents in question were made in furtherance of a fraud or deliberate abuse of power. The court found reasonable grounds, prima facie, to conclude that property transactions and associated legal communications sought to frustrate enforcement of judgment and defeat creditors, and thus privilege does not prevent adducing of evidence.

Court Disposition

Privilege claim dismissed; documents not prevented from being adduced.

Orders

  • ['Documents subject to claim of privilege (with minor exceptions identified by tags) may be adduced as evidence under s125 of the Evidence Act']