Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
EVIDENCE - client legal privilege - loss of privilege - whether substance of confidential communication was disclosed - whether holder of privilege impliedly consented to disclosure of confidential communication - whether disclosure of confidential communication was inadvertent. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 121, 122, 126 Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins, 2 March 1998, unreported (FCA/FC), followed. Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12 (S Ct NSW/Rolfe J), cited. Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475, cited. Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon [1991] 1 WLR 73 (CA), cited. Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83, cited. Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership [1987] 1 WLR 1027 (CA), cited. Hooker Corporation Ltd v Darling Harbour Authority (1987) 9 NSWLR 538, cited. Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgeland Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217 (FCA/FC), cited. Woollahra Municipal Council v Westpac Banking Corporation (1992) 33 NSWLR 529, cited.
BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD v STATE OF new south wales and telstra corporation limited
ng 572 of 1997
Judgment no 8
sackville j
sydney
1 april 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 572 of 1995
BETWEEN: BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD APPLICANT AND STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES FIRST RESPONDENT TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT BETWEEN: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND: CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS CLAIMANT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS CLAIMANT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS RESPONDENT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM AND: BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM AND: BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS RESPONDENT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM BETWEEN: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM AND: STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS RESPONDENT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM JUDGE: SACKVILLE J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 1 APRIL, 1998
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