Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Griffiths v Rose [2010] FCA 964 Citation: Griffiths v Rose [2010] FCA 964
Parties: JOHN FRANK LEWIS GRIFFITHS v JO-ANN ROSE, KEN PETTIFER, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
File number: ACD 9 of 2010
Judge: STONE J
Date of judgment: 31 August 2010
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – respondent's claim for legal professional privilege – applicant concedes that documents were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice – dispute arising in context of application for judicial review – whether requirements of procedural fairness preclude confidentiality necessary for legal professional privilege – whether decision maker required to give applicant access to legal advice received where that legal advice is adverse to the applicant and is credible, relevant and significant ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – legal professional privilege – whether advice given to decision makers must be disclosed to person affected by decision where that legal advice is adverse to person affected and is credible, relevant and significant to making of decision – whether communications capable of attracting legal professional privilege
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (Cth)1977 Public Service Act (Cth) 1999 Migration Act (Cth) 1958), s 428
Cases cited: Bushell v Environment Secretary [1981] AC at 97 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Limited (1997) 188 CLR 501 Esso Australia Resources Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Classifications Review Board (2006) 236 ALR 313 SZBYR & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 Waterford v Commonwealth of Australia (1987) 163 CLR 5
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