Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Fair Work Ombudsman v Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2023] FCA 1098 File number(s): ACD 41 of 2018
Judgment of: RAPER J
Date of judgment: 13 September 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 14 September 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – privilege – legal professional privilege – at common law – whether communications between solicitor and client – whether communications in furtherance of illegal purpose
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 325, 539, 682, 696(2), 697(1), 700, 701, 704, 705 Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth) Appendix B—The Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant, para 2(g)
Cases cited: Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd v Sage Group Plc (No 2) [2013] FCA 1098; 306 ALR 384 DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v InterTAN Inc [2003] FCA 1191; 135 FCR 151 Fair Work Ombudsman v Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2021] FCA 1242 Friday v Minister for Primary Industry and Resources [2020] FCA 984 Kenquist Nominees Pty Ltd v Campbell (No 5) [2018] FCA 853 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 9 ALR 437; 50 ALJR 666 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 52
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