Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Parkin v Boral Limited (Privilege Argument) [2022] FCA 1467 File number(s): NSD 602 of 2020 NSD 935 of 2020
Judgment of: RARES J
Date of judgment: 14 November 2022
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – legal professional privilege – dominant purpose test – where shareholder representative parties seek damages and statutory compensation for losses allegedly suffered due to company's failure promptly to disclose to market under s 674(2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) accounting irregularities in United States subsidiary – where representative parties challenged company's claims of legal professional privilege over investigation reports into accounting irregularities prepared by or at direction of company's United States lawyers – whether dominant purpose for creation of investigation reports was to provide United States lawyers' legal advice to company – Held: privilege claims upheld
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 674
Cases cited: Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 Hartogen Energy Limited (in liq) v The Australian Gas Light Company (1992) 36 FCR 557 Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) (2012) 87 ACSR 229
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: 9–10, 14 November 2022
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