Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 156

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited [2009] NSWDC 156

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 February 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: Access to documents granted.

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL LAW - Application for access to documents - privilege - acess reasonably necessary to enable proper understanding of document tendered

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s 126

CASES CITED: Sugden v Sugden (2007) 49 MVR 96 Towney v Minister for Land and Water Conservation (NSW) (1997) 76 FCR 401

Suttram Pty Limited PARTIES: Michelin Australia Pty Limited Michelin Australia

FILE NUMBER(S): 4530/06

COUNSEL: Mr Sharpe (Plaintiff) Mr Vincent (2nd Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 After a judgment I delivered on 14 November 2008 the solicitors for the plaintiff produced a document. The document was an email from the plaintiff's insurer to the plaintiff's solicitors dated 27 October 2005.

2 Mr Vincent of counsel for the second defendant relies on s 126 of the Evidence Act 1995 to argue that privilege will not prevent adducing evidence of certain other documents. Those other documents are ones referred to in the affidavit of Tony James Bates sworn 29 November 2008. They are the documents contained in schedule D in para 7. Although privileged at this stage, Mr Vincent argues that those documents in schedule D are no longer protected by the Evidence Act's provisions about privilege because they are documents which it is reasonably necessary to see to enable a proper understanding of one of the documents produced by the plaintiff after my ruling on 14 November 2008. The document produced then was tendered on this application and marked exhibit VDA and is, as I have said, an email from the plaintiff's insurer to the plaintiff's solicitor dated 27 October 2005.