X' and ANOR v 'A' [NO 2] [1989] NSWCA 252

X' and ANOR v 'A' [NO 2] [1989] NSWCA 252

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal refused (by majority) as orders below were exercises of proper discretion in management of urgent, sensitive litigation; no error was made in declining to order return of documents (no privilege for corporation, evidence did not support interference with exercise of discretion for individual), and case management justified declining immediate order for disclosure of identity of recipients of confidential information.

Parties
Applicant: 'Xx'; Respondent: 'A'
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Interlocutory Applications / Court of Appeal – Orders on Appeal and Applications for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs (majority); Kirby P would have granted leave and allowed the cross-appeal for disclosure of identities.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Disclosure of Identity of Recipients of Confidential Information, Self Incrimination Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Case Management and Discretion
Practice and Procedure Privilege Confidential Information Interlocutory Orders Disclosure of Identity of Recipients of Confidential Information Self Incrimination Privilege Public Interest Immunity Case Management and Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

'Xx'

Applicant

'A'

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Interlocutory Applications / Court of Appeal – Orders on Appeal and 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 corporate and individual defendants in disclosure of documents
  3. 3 Whether discretion in case management should be interfered with on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal refused (by majority) as orders below were exercises of proper discretion in management of urgent, sensitive litigation; no error was made in declining to order return of documents (no privilege for corporation, evidence did not support interference with exercise of discretion for individual), and case management justified declining immediate order for disclosure of identity of recipients of confidential information.

Court Disposition

Appeal and applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs (majority); Kirby P would have granted leave and allowed the cross-appeal for disclosure of identities.

Orders

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