Category Archives: s. 118

Ubertini v Saeco International Group SpA (No 4) [2014] VSC 47 (18 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/47.html

CORPORATIONS – Oppression – compulsory acquisition of minority shareholdings – parent company majority shareholder in subsidiary – demands for payment by parent company – non-supply of new range of stock to subsidiary – alleged failure or refusal by parent company to fill stock orders of subsidiary – appointment of administrators to subsidiary by parent company’s nominee directors on board of subsidiary – charging of penalty interest by parent company on outstanding debts of subsidiary – whether deliberate course of conduct by parent company to remove minority shareholder of subsidiary from management and acquire minority shareholdings in subsidiary without payment – whether parent company’s nominee directors on board of subsidiary failed to properly assist subsidiary – whether conduct of parent company contrary to the interests of members of subsidiary as a whole, or oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against minority shareholders of subsidiary – applicable legal principles – whether conduct of parent company conduct in the affairs of the subsidiary – prevention of board meetings – whether unauthorised transfer of funds, related party transfers and improper incurring of adviser fees by minority shareholder of subsidiary – whether alleged conduct of minority shareholder oppressive conduct – whether alleged failure by minority shareholder to cause subsidiary to pay debts to parent company oppressive conduct – whether oppressive conduct of minority shareholder should disentitle relief sought – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 53, 232, 233.

Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 200 (13 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2014/200.html

PRIVILEGE – admissibility of evidence – patent attorney/client privilege – relationship to legal advice privilege – scope of advice privilege – waiver – admissibility of evidence of communications between patent attorney and client – where discovery and inspection given of documents recording such communications – where no claim for patent attorney/client privilege made in respect of such documents – whether such documents privileged from production – whether production of such documents voluntary – whether other evidence of communications between patent attorney and client privileged and therefore inadmissible by reason of s 200 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether such privilege waived by voluntary disclosure of related documents – scope of waiver

PATENTS – patent attorney/client privilege – relationship to legal advice privilege – scope of advice privilege

Sexton v Homer [2013] NSWCA 414 (5 December 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/414.html

APPEAL – challenge to findings of fact – challenge to contingent finding of contributory negligence – retrial required

EVIDENCE – client legal privilege – whether statement of defendant obtained by investigator for use by insurer is privileged – whether trial judge correctly assessed dominant purpose of statement – whether document a confidential communication – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 117, 118

NEGLIGENCE – motorcycle accident – damages agreed – whether question of liability was correctly determined – trial judge reasons do not record process of resolving disputed facts – erroneous fact-finding process

Hannaford v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW [2013] NSWSC 1708 (21 November 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1708.html

PROCEDURE – notice of motion – legal professional privilege – documents – s 118, s 119 Evidence Act – whether documents disclosed – some documents not confidential – whether solicitor’ and counsel independent – dominant purpose – waiver – waiver established – s 122 Evidence Act does not apply – orders

EVIDENCE – privilege – legal professional privilege – privileged claimed under s 118 and s 119 of Evidence Act

Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Limited [2013] FCA 998 (3 October 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/998.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim of privilege by certain respondents over communications with legal and financial advisers in connection with sale of shares in second applicant to first applicant – where legal and financial advisers also retained by, and provided advice to, second applicant – whether second applicant entitled to share jointly in privilege claim over relevant communications – whether certain respondents entitled to claim privilege over relevant communications to the exclusion of second respondent – whether process employed for determining privilege and evidence given in support sufficient to sustain claim of privilege

Hancock & Anor v Rinehart & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1402 (23 September 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1402.html

[PRIVILEGE] – documents produced in answer to subpoena served on accountants who had provided accounting advice to trustee that included reference to legal advice – where issues include trustee’s state of mind and specific beliefs at time of sending letter the subject of claims for trustee’s removal – whether privilege waived

Shea v TruEnergy Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2013] FCA 937 (5 September 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/937.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –– production sought during trial of draft expert reports and expert’s correspondence with solicitors – whether client legal privilege subsisted and if so waived – relevant provisions of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and applicable legal principles – call for production too late – moreover, evidence indicated that documents had client legal privilege which was not waived

22. The present case is not governed by common law principles of legal professional privilege but rather is governed by the Evidence Act (see s 4(1) of that Act).

Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2013] VSC 422 (15 August 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/422.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Call for production of documents in the course of crossexamination at trial – Whether documents within the call – Whether documents produced the subject of client legal privilege – Dominant purpose test – Whether leave to crossexamine deponent should be granted – Leave granted on limited basis – rule 40.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 45, 118, 119 and 131A.

Zmak v TCB Trans Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 310 (17 June 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/310.html

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Occupational Health and Safety prosecution – Committal proceedings – Witness summons – Summons to produce documents – Legitimate forensic purpose – Legal professional privilege – Certiorari – Whether decision in course of committal proceeding amenable to certiorari – Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, ss 21 and 132.

Aouad v R; El-Zayet v R [2013] NSWSC 760 (14 June 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/760.html

EVIDENCE – client legal privilege – internal document handed up in court to confirm decision of no further proceedings (s 7(2)(b) Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)) – whether document privileged under s 118 and s 119 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – whether Director of Public Prosecutions is “client” and Deputy Director is “Australian lawyer” – whether client legal privilege waived by act of Crown Prosecutor handing document up in court to be filed with the court file – whether consent imputed to client – whether court functus officio at time of handing up of document

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v State of Victoria [2013] VSC 302 (13 June 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/302.html

EVIDENCE – Privilege – Legal professional privilege – Adequacy of evidence in support of claim.

EVIDENCE – Privilege – Legal professional privilege – documents and communications with third parties – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 118.

EVIDENCE – Privilege – Joint privilege – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 124.

EVIDENCE – Privilege – Waiver of privilege.

Marshall v Prescott [2013] NSWCA 152 (6 June 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/152.html

PROCEDURE – costs – leave to appeal sought in respect of costs orders made on an issue-by-issue basis – applicant seeks to challenge the judge’s conclusions on certain of the issues but not the ultimate decision – whether an appeal court should canvass intermediate conclusions merely for the sake of an appeal on costs – leave refused – PROCEDURE – subpoena to non-party – legal professional privilege at common law – common interest privilege – person maintaining claim by subrogation to proceeds of pending litigation – communication to that person of confidential legal advice given to the party in whose shoes the person seeks to stand – whether common interest of the litigant and the person claiming by subrogation exists so as to preclude a finding of waiver of privilege – PROCEDURE – subpoena to non-party – legal professional privilege at common law – where the non-party claiming by subrogation has agreed to fund proceedings brought by the litigant – whether the litigation funding agreement is protected by legal professional privilege

Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd (ACN 108 880 968) v Bank of Queensland Limited (ACN 009 656 740) (No 16) and 13 related matters [2013] NSWSC 418 (26 April 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/418.html

EVIDENCE – privilege – client legal privilege – whether an adequate description of documents, over which privilege is claimed, has been provided – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 21.3 and 21.4 – whether privilege properly claimed – inspection of privileged material – DISCOVERY – relevance – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 21.1(2).

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 9) [2013] NSWSC 212 (21 March 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/212.html

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – lawyers – client legal privilege – waiver of – inconsistency between claims made and maintenance of the privilege – claim for mental harm – incapacity to conduct business or litigation alleged – documents seeking and providing instructions to solicitors in other litigation – privilege waived

Danne v The Coroner [2012] VSC 454 (2 October 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/454.html

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Hearing rule of natural justice – Legal professional privilege – Whether a coroner is authorised to provide material to an interested party on condition that a copy of any report prepared for that party on that material be provided to the coroner – Such a condition undermines the hearing rule of natural justice and legal professional privilege and is invalid.

CORONERS COURT – Power of a coroner to impose conditions on the provision of material to an interested party – Whether a tissue sample taken from a body remains part of the body – Whether a coroner has control over the tissue sample – Whether legal professional privilege under the common law or under the Evidence Act 2008 applies – Coroners Act 2008 ss 22, 28, 47, 49, 56, 58, 62, 66, 67, 114, 115 and the definition of ‘body’ in s 3(1) – Human Tissue Act 1982 ss 27, 29, 30, 33; Evidence Act 2008 ss 118, 119, 131A.

A J Lucas Operations Pty Ltd v CPW Trailer Sales & Repairs Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1052 (10 September 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/1052.html

PROCEDURE – claim of conversion and detinue – discovery – application by plaintiff to cross-examine third defendant in relation to alleged insufficient discovery – application by defendants for discovery of documents – claim of legal professional privilege by plaintiff – application to file cross-claim – HELD – grant plaintiff’s application to cross-examine third defendant – grant defendants’ application for discovery – grant application to file cross-claim

Wilson & Anor v Harrison & Anor [2012] VSC 404 (7 September 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/404.html

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Review of ruling of magistrate holding that notes made between lawyers for a party and a witness were subject to legal professional privilege – Notes produced before hearing for judicial review – Issue in question moot – Relief sought in respect of magistrate’s ruling not granted – Further application to amend originating motion to seek order prohibiting the hearing of the Magistrates’ Court prosecution until assurances made by prosecutor of compliance with duty of disclosure – Relief sought not within Court’s supervisory jurisdiction – Application to amend dismissed.

Melrose Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd v. Manitowoc Crane Group Australia Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 904 (17 August 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/904.html

PRIVILEGE – fire causing damage to crane – crane owner sues company responsible for sales and service – seller serves subpoenas to produce documents on three non-party respondent incident investigators – owners insurer claims litigation privilege or in the alternative advice privilege – HELD – documents protected from disclosure by litigation privilege – WAIVER – seller claims owners insurer by its conduct waived privilege – HELD – privilege not waived

McKenna bhnf Upton v Australian Capital Territory and Others [2012] ACTSC 115 (27 July 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2012/115.html

PROCEDURE – discovery and interrogatories – whether witness statements form part of an investigator’s report – witness statements were obtained at the same time and prepared by the same person as the investigator’s report – witness statements are the basis for the investigator’s report – found that the witness statements are part of the investigator’s report

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 118

JB v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 12 (17 February 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2012/12.html

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – admissions – s 90 Evidence Ac 1995 – whether the trial judge should have admitted admissions made by an accused to a community support person.

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – misdirection in presentation of defence case to jury – whether self-defence should have been put to the jury.

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – wrong statutory ratio of parole to non-parole period – s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether trial judge considered all mitigating factors – s 21A(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 90, 118, 126, 127

Australian Crime Commission v Stewart [2012] FCA 29 (30 January 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/29.html

EVIDENCE – legal professional privilege – privilege claimed over documents obtained pursuant to search warrants and summons under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) and Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – whether Australian Crime Commission (ACC) entitled to inspect

EVIDENCE – whether documents subject to legal professional privilege – applicable principles – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) not relevant – no issue of admissibility of evidence – issue to be determined under common law – legal professional privilege a fundamental common law immunity – whether reference to common law is to common law of Australia

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – choice of law – whether right to inspect documents seized under Australian statute gives rise to choice of law question – question of statutory interpretation – no choice of law question – issue governed by Australian principles of legal professional privilege

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – if choice of law question arises whether Australian choice of law principles apply

Bare v Small & Ors [2011] VSC 639 (19 December 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/639.html

EVIDENCE ― Client legal privilege ― Legal advice privilege ― Loss of privilege where communication “was made or prepared in furtherance of a deliberate abuse of power” ― Advice sought from counsel by statutory decision maker ― Subsequent decision alleged to constitute an abuse of power ― Subpoena to produce legal advice ― Whether privilege lost ― “Deliberate abuse of power” requires knowledge of unlawful end ― No loss of privilege ― Evidence Act (No 47 of 2008), s 125(1)(b).

In the matter of Creditors Trust Deed Established in the Administration of Bevillesta Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1419 (25 November 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/1419.html

PROCEDURE – civil – privilege – common interest privilege – communication between administrators’ lawyers and former lawyers of company in administration relating to litigation brought by plaintiff against company- anticipated proceedings by plaintiff if its proof of debt rejected – raise same issues – administrators and company have common interest in relation to proceedings

Newtronics Pty Ltd (in liq) v Gjergja & Ors [2011] VSC 594 (23 November 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/594.html

EVIDENCE ― Client legal privilege ― Loss or waiver of privilege ― Delivery of bill of costs for party/party taxation ― Descriptions by item of charges and disbursements ― Whether description is privileged as revealing confidential communication ― Sufficiency of evidence establishing privilege in description ― Whether revelation of description and delivery of bill amounts to waiver of putative privilege ― Waiver for limited purpose ― Whether disclosure occurred by “compulsion of law “under taxation process ― Evidence Act No 47 of 2008 (Vic), s 118, 119, 122(3), (5).

Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (formerly SC Land Richmond Pty Ltd) & Ors [2011] VSC 406 (26 August 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/406.html

Client legal privilege – subpoenas

19 The plaintiff submitted that the initial response to progress payment claims was merely contract administration and fell within the ambit of administration of the trust. However, in light of the transmission of 5 May 2006 it is not possible to characterise the resolution of the claims as anything other than an anticipated or pending Australian proceeding. Albeit that by virtue of s 4, the Evidence Act applies to all proceedings in a Victorian court as defined by the dictionary, s 9 sets out that the Evidence Act does not affect the operation of common law “except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment.” Accordingly, I am not constrained to conclude that disputes with respect to progress claims not heard in a Victorian court are necessarily excluded from either the common law principles of legal professional privilege nor the statutory principles of client legal privilege.

Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 477 (23 September 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/477.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Joint legal privilege – No joint advice or legal privilege found – Definition of ‘Australia or overseas proceeding’ and ‘Australian Court’ under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Krok v Szaintop Homes Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] VSC 16 – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 118, 119 .

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Lending Centre Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1057 (12 September 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1057.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Privilege – application for production of documents disclosed on discovery over which claim for legal professional privilege made – confidentiality – dominant purpose for which documents created

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 127
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 117, 118, 119, 131A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 117, 118, 119, 131A
Evidence Act 2008 (VIC)
Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act 2007 (Cth)
Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW)

Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd and Ors v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Limited and Ors [2004] NSWSC 40 (10 February 2004)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2004/40.html

[Client Legal Privilege] – Motion for access to documentsproduced on subpoena – Objection to access on ground that documents consisting of pleadings, affidavits and particulars filed and served in other proceedings are privileged and were filed and served under compulsion of law (s.122 (2) (c) – Claim that pleadings and/or affidavits are not privileged so that s122 (2) (c) does not apply – Alternative application for access pursuant to Part 65 rule 7 and Practice Note 97.

Hawksford v Hawksford; Hawksford v Hawksford [2008] NSWSC 31 (1 February 2008)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2008/31.html

PROCEDURE – Discovery and inspection of documents – Grounds for resisting production – Client legal privilege – Whether documents privileged – Dominant purpose for creation of documents – Whether two directors of company each equally entitled to maintain claims for privilege on behalf of company – Director defending claims on behalf of company entitled to maintain claims for privilege on behalf of company – Where retainer of solicitor by company invalid because director who retained services of solicitor on behalf of company acted ultra vires – Whetherbelief that retainer exists sufficient to support privilege – Privilege available where client bona fide believed on reasonable grounds that the solicitor was retained as its solicitor – Held that director with authority to defend proceedings on behalf of company entitled to maintain claim for privilege, on behalf of company, over certain communications with solicitor which were created when company believed retainer existed.CORPORATIONS – Orders previously made for inspection of documents by a director – Supplemental orders made for purpose of making more efficacious the principal orders.

Powercor Australia Ltd v Perry & Anor [2011] VSCA 239 (19 August 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2011/239.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to appeal – Interlocutory order – Legal professional privilege – Whether judge erred in finding documents were not prepared for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice – Whether CEO’s purpose is of central relevance to assessment of dominant purpose – Whether applicant’s failure to call CEO at hearing could be regarded as significant – Application refused

Hodgson v Amcor Ltd; Amcor Ltd v Barnes & Ors (No 4) [2011] VSC 269 (16 June 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/269.html

EVIDENCE – Legal Professional Privilege – ss 118, 119, 120 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether privilege attached to document waived by delivery to 3rd party – Failure to object to document of which privilege is claimed in opening submissions – Whether acted in a manner inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality retained in document per s 117 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether document can be adduced in evidence – Held privilege retained – Burden of proof – Whether burden of proof lies with the party asserting the privilege pursuant to s 122 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether burden of proof shifts pursuant to s 122(5) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Orders 42, 42A of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – Failure to provide subpoenaed documents directly to the Court by solicitor – Whether subpoenaed documents must be provided to the Court – Purpose of providing subpoenaed documents to Court prior to review – Subpoenaed documents received by practitioner referred to in an affidavit of documents – Conduct of the solicitor improper.

Hodgson v Amcor Ltd; Amcor Ltd v Barnes & Ors (No 2) [2011] VSC 204 (16 May 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/204.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal professional privilege – Legal principles applied – No necessity to identify Third Parties communicated with – Solicitor’s memorandum of costs and time ledger – Crime/Fraud exception – Inspection of documents for the purpose of determining the question – Ruling sustaining privilege in relation to some documents and rejecting privilege in relation to others in a redacted form – Rule 29.13 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss.118, 119 and 133.

Samenic Limited (formerly Hoyts Cinemas Limited) & Anor v APM Group (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 194 (12 May 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/194.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ― Legal advice privilege ― Subpoena for document production ― Fire damage to property under construction ― Claim against construction contractors and managers ― Insured loss ― Insurer’s engagement of fire investigator ― Retention of lawyers for advice ― Production of investigator’s report ― Whether report is privileged from production ― Dominant purpose of bringing report into existence ― Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), (No 47 of 2008), s 118.

Stratford Sun Limited v OM Holdings Limited; In the Matter of OM Holdings Limited (No 2) [2011] FCA 482 (9 May 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/482.html

1. This proceeding was commenced on 18 April 2011 when the plaintiff approached the corporations duty judge for orders abridging the time for the service of its Originating Process and affidavit in support. In that Process, the plaintiff claimed urgent interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the defendant from putting certain resolutions to its Annual General Meeting which was scheduled to be held at 10.30 am on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 at the defendant’s principal business address in Singapore.
2. The plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief was heard and determined by me on 19 April 2011 (Stratford Sun Limited v OM Holdings Limited; In the Matter of OM Holdings Limited [2011] FCA 414). The relevant facts and circumstances underpinning the plaintiff’s complaints as at 18 April 2011 are set out in that judgment.

Qantas Airways Limited v Portelli [2011] VSC 162 (27 April 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/162.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal Professional Privilege – Claim by injured worker – Appeal from order by Magistrates’ Court to provide copy of medical report – Whether Magistrate compelled to find that dominant purpose of obtaining report was for legal advice – Self-insurer appointing agent to carry out its functions – Whether s.104B(2)(g) of Accident Compensation Act 1985 abrogated legal professional privilege.

Hodgson v Amcor Ltd; Amcor Ltd & Ors v Barnes & Ors [2011] VSC 63 (4 March 2011)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/63.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to strike out pleadings for contumelious disregard of Court orders – Inherent jurisdiction – Delay in bringing the case to trial – Explanation for delay – Prejudice – Non-party discovery – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r.1.14; r.24.02; r.24.05; r.29.12.1; r.34.01; r.34.02; r.35.07 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss.7; 16-27; 47; 51.