National Employers' Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Waind [1979] HCA 11

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Aickin JJ. National Employers' Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Waind [1979] HCA 11

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1979, March 20 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage in this case of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Mason. I agree with his conclusion and the reasons he assigns for it. The information which the documents contain was obtained to enable the Insurance Company to decide itself whether or not its insured employer was liable to pay compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 N.S.W., as amended. The document setting out this information quite likely was brought into existence to enable consideration of that question to be given by various employees of the Insurance Company. However useful these documents might prove in any supervening litigation, they were not in any sense proofs of witnesses or statements prepared for submission to legal advisers. The policy reasons of the law in providing for professional privilege of documents do not suggest to my mind any need to treat any of these documents as covered by that privilege.

Accordingly, I agree that this appeal be dismissed.

Stephen J.

I agree that, for the reasons appearing in the judgment of my brother Mason, this appeal should be dismissed.

Mason J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal from an order of Carmichael J. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales whereby his Honour disallowed a claim to legal professional privilege made in respect of documents listed in a subpoena duces tecum and ordered the production of those documents. By Pt 36, r. 13 of the Supreme Court Rules an objection to production of documents required to be produced on a subpoena may be made on grounds of privilege.