Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Hillier v Martin (No 10) [2022] FCA 166 File number(s): SAD 113 of 2020
Judgment of: ANDERSON J
Date of judgment: 3 March 2022
Catchwords: PRIVILEGE – claim by the First Respondent to the substantive proceeding, objecting to or seeking dispensation from compliance with discovery obligations due to privilege against self-incrimination – where confidential affidavits sworn setting out objections to production of documents – whether a real and appreciable risk of prosecution – where there is no real and appreciable risk of prosecution – privilege against self-incrimination not made out
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Cases cited: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi [2021] HCA 22; 392 ALR 1 Hillier v Martin (No 4) [2021] FCA 710 Martin v Hillier (No 2) [2021] FCA 958 Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 190; 373 ALR 624; 140 ACSR 340 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 152 CLR 328 Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380 Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] AC 547 Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281
Division: General Division
Registry: South Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
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