Hing, Frank Yung Chih v National Crime Authority [1995] FCA 1040

CATCHWORDS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - National Crime Authority hearing - refusal of witness to answer questions - legal professional privilege. National Crime Authority Act 1984 s 30(2) Carter v Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 69 ALJR 572 FRANK YUNG CHIH HING v NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY No. NG 374 of 1995 Coram:Whitlam J Place: Sydney Date: 20 December 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 374 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) FRANK YUNG CHIH HING Applicant NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Respondent Coram:Whitlam J Place: Sydney Date: 20 December 1995 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the respondent is affirmed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 374 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) FRANK YUNG CHIH HING Applicant NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Respondent Coram:Whitlam J Place: Sydney Date: 20 December 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application under s 32(2) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 ("the Act") to review the decision of the respondent that the applicant's claim to be entitled to refuse to answer particular questions is not justified. The questions were put to the applicant at a hearing before the respondent on 20 April 1995. Such hearings are held in private. A solicitor, to whom I shall refer as Mr C, had been summoned to appear on 10 April 1995 before the respondent to give evidence in relation to associations between the applicant and a named company. I shall call that company Y Pty Ltd. At the earlier hearing Mr C evidently indicated that his answers to questions on the matter notified in his summons might disclose privileged communications made to or by the applicant. Accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 20 April 1995, on which day the applicant was also required to appear as a witness pursuant to a summons previously served upon him. The respondent gave its decision under s 32(1) of the Act on 23 May 1995.