Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commissioner of Taxation v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2022] FCA 278 File number: VID 364 of 2020
Judgment of: MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment: 25 March 2022
Catchwords: TAXATION – legal professional privilege – where Commissioner of Taxation served notice to produce documents on partner of multi-disciplinary partnership and its client – where the partner of the firm and the client refused to produce certain documents on the ground of legal professional privilege – where the Commissioner sought declaratory relief to the effect that the documents were not privileged – applicable principles – application of principles in the context of services provided by a multi-disciplinary partnership
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 155 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 118 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 263 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth) Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Sch 1, s 353-10 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 155
Cases cited: Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 796 Australian Crime Commission v Stewart (2012) 87 ATR 31 AWB Ltd v Cole (2006) 152 FCR 382 AWB Ltd v Cole (No 5) (2006) 155 FCR 30 Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 Balabel v Air India [1988] 1 Ch 317 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 195 ALR 717 Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd (2005) 225 ALR 266 Dalleagles Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 4 WAR 325 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543 DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v InterTAN Inc (2003) 135 FCR 151 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti (2018) 266 FCR 385 Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2002] 1 Qd R 233 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185 Kenquist Nominees Pty Ltd v Campbell (No 5) [2018] FCA 853 Kiefel v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 622 Nederlandse Reassurantie Groep Holding NV v Bacon & Woodrow [1995] 1 All ER 976 Nipps (Administrator) v Remagen Lend ADA Pty Ltd (No 3) (2021) 152 ACSR 196 Nipps (Administrator) v Remagen Lend ADA Pty Ltd (No 6) [2021] FCA 694 Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCA 142 South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd (2000) 177 ALR 611 State of New South Wales v Betfair (2009) 180 FCR 543 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v State of Victoria [2013] VSC 302 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No 2) [2007] FCA 1445 Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2005] 1 AC 610 Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521 Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch D 675
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