Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Winra v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1447 Citation: Winra v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1447
Parties: BETHANY HELENA WINRA v SKYCITY ADELAIDE PTY LTD and KELMAN DAVID
File number: SAD 285 of 2011
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 18 December 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application for non-standard and more extensive discovery under Rules 20.13 and 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) ("the Rules") – alternative application for particular discovery under Rule 20.21 of the Rules. PRIVILEGE – legal professional privilege – implied waiver – whether privileged legal advice put in issue by pleading – whether implied waiver on basis of partial disclosure. Held: The first respondent has not waived legal professional privilege. Other orders for discovery made.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Rules 20.13, 20.14 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss 28A, 28B, 105, 106
Cases cited: Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12, cited Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101, cited DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc (2003) 127 FCR 499, cited Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1, cited Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 442, cited Pratt Holdings Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357 Thomason v Campbelltown Municipal Council (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 347, cited
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