Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macleod [2024] FCAFC 174 Appeal from: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Noumi Ltd [2024] FCA 349
File number(s): NSD 676 of 2024 NSD 678 of 2024
Judgment of: BURLEY, ANDERSON AND MEAGHER JJ
Date of judgment: 20 December 2024
Catchwords: PRIVILEGE – legal professional privilege – third party report – investigation into accounting issues – whether report was created for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice PRIVILEGE – waiver – implied waiver – whether voluntary disclosure of report to the regulator was inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality in the report – whether "derivative use" and/or "derivative disclosure" of the report amounted to a waiver of privilege – no waiver found – appeal allowed
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 19 Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice [1986] HCA 80; (1986) 161 CLR 475 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Noumi Limited (No 3) [2024] FCA 862 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Noumi Limited (No 4) [2024] FCA 1192 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Noumi Ltd [2024] FCA 349 British Coal Corporation v Dennis Rye Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 WLR 1113; [1988] 3 All ER 816 Cantor v Aldi Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1391 Citic Pacific Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2012] HKCA 153 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 3; (1997) 188 CLR 501 Commissioner of Taxation v PricewaterhouseCooper [2022] FCA 278 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 213 CLR 543 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries [1991] FCA 844; (1991) 33 FCR 397 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kinghorn; Kinghorn v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 48; (2020) 379 ALR 345 DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc [2003] FCA 384; (2003) 127 FCR 499 Cases cited: Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited [2013] HCA 46; (2013) 250 CLR 303 Fyffes v DCC [2005] 1 IR 59 Goldberg v Ng [1995] HCA 39; (1995) 185 CLR 83 Goldman v Hesper [1988] 1238; [1988] 3 All ER 97 Gotha City v Sotheby's [No 1] [1998] 1 WLR 114 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 9; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Macquarie Bank Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 117 Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1 New South Wales v Betfair Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 160; (2009) 180 FCR 543 Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37; (2008) 234 CLR 275 Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 122; (2004) 136 FCR 357 Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2016] 1 WLR 361 Robertson v Singtel [2023] FCA 1392 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Robertson [2024] FCAFC 58
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate