Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth of Australia v Shenzhen Energy Transport Co Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 87 File number(s): QUD 178 of 2013
Judge(s): GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment: 12 February 2016
Catchwords: PRIVILEGE – consideration of an application by the Commonwealth of Australia challenging a claim for immunity from production by the respondent of 26 documents on the ground of legal professional privilege
Cases cited: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 404 - cited Rio Tinto Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2006) 235 ALR 127 - cited Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521 - cited Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 242 ALR 601 - cited Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185 - cited Commissioner of Taxation v Donoghue [2015] FCAFC 183 - cited
Date of hearing: 10 February 2016
Date of last submissions: 10 February 2016
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Admiralty and Maritime
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 35
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Young
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Lawrance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Thynne & Macartney
ORDERS QUD 178 of 2013
BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant
AND: SHENZHEN ENERGY TRANSPORT LTD Respondent
JUDGE: GREENWOOD J DATE OF ORDER: 12 FEBRUARY 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to section 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rules 1.32 and 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders are made from the Chambers of the Honourable Justice Greenwood and published electronically. 2. The application made by the applicant by which it challenges a claim by the respondent to immunity from production of 26 documents set out in a list prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor on behalf of the applicant dated 19 November 2015 and filed on that date, on the ground of legal professional privilege, is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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