Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited (No 4) [2008] NSWDC 316

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited (No 4) [2008] NSWDC 316

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 November 2008

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: Claim of legal professional privilege is defeated (in respect of one document) by a voluntary disclosure of substance.

CATCHWORDS: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - Voluntary disclosure of substance - Legitimate forensic purpose

Evidence Act 1995 LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 2004 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Adelaide Steamship Co Limited v Spalvins (1997) 152 ALR 418 CASES CITED: BT Australasia Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (1998) 153 ALR 722 Makus v Provincial Insurance Company Limited (1983) 25 NSWCCR 1

PARTIES: Suttram Pty Limited Michelin Australia Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 4530/06

COUNSEL: J L Sharpe (Plaintiff) A R Vincent (Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Fraser Clancy (Plaintiff) Deacons (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1. The second defendant in these proceedings issued various subpoenas and notices to produce. Some of those were directed to the plaintiff Suttram Pty Limited, some to the plaintiff's insurer NTI Limited and some to the plaintiff's solicitors. Two were issued to persons at Unisearch Ltd at the University of New South Wales and a Mr Colin Wingrove. Six subpoenas and notices to produce were issued in all. They were admitted and marked exhibits 1 to 6.

2. The documents have been produced by the solicitors for the plaintiff. However, in an affidavit of Tony James Bates sworn on 29 October 2008 legal professional privilege is claimed in respect of a number of those documents. The claim is made under s119 of the Evidence Act 1995 as that is made applicable to the process of producing documents.