'X' and ANOR v 'A' [NO 2] [1995] NSWCA 1

'X' and ANOR v 'A' [NO 2] [1995] NSWCA 1

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was refused because the orders made by the primary judge were discretionary decisions in the management of sensitive and urgent proceedings relating to confidential information, and no error in the exercise of that discretion was found. Privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to corporate defendants. For individuals, privilege must be formally claimed. The refusal to order return of documents and to compel disclosure of third parties was within the discretion of the primary judge.

Parties
Appellant: 'X'; Appellant: ANOR; Respondent: 'A'
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application; Applications for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal and to appeal against judgment of 15 May 1995 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Confidential Information, Case Management, Self Incrimination Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure of Information
Practice and Procedure Privilege Confidential Information Case Management Self Incrimination Privilege Public Interest Immunity Disclosure of Information

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

'X'

Appellant

ANOR

Appellant

'A'

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application; Applications for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to challenge refusal of orders for disclosure of communication of confidential information.
  2. 2 Whether privilege against self-incrimination applies to documents produced by corporate and individual defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the court should order the return of documents produced by mistake and claimed to be privileged.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was refused because the orders made by the primary judge were discretionary decisions in the management of sensitive and urgent proceedings relating to confidential information, and no error in the exercise of that discretion was found. Privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to corporate defendants. For individuals, privilege must be formally claimed. The refusal to order return of documents and to compel disclosure of third parties was within the discretion of the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal and to appeal against judgment of 15 May 1995 dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed with costs.