NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Hyde v NRMA Insurance Ltd & anor [2001] NSWSC 396 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 21431/96 HEARING DATE(S) : 11 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 May 2001
Anne Elizabeth Hyde - plaintiff/1st opponent PARTIES : NRMA Insurance Limited - 1st defendant/2nd opponent Woolworths limited - 2nd defendant/Applicant JUDGMENT OF : Registrar Jupp
LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Capelin - applicant/2nd defendant COUNSEL : Webb QC & Wright - 1st opponent/plaintiff Williams - 2nd opponent/1st defendant Phillips Fox - applicant/2nd defendant SOLICITORS : McClellands - opponent1/plaintiff Sparke Helmore - opponent 2/1st defendant CATCHWORDS : Claim for client legal privilege LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss119, 133 National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Limited v Waind (1979) 141 CLR 648; CASES CITED : Hronis v Neowhouse (1971) NSW R 468 ACC v Safeway 153 ALR 42 DECISION : 1. Documents produced under subponea by Aspeck Holdings listed 6 to 29 in exhibt A to motion marked as priveleged; 2. Access granted to documents listed as 1 to 5 in Exhibit A; 3. Applicant/2nd Defendant to pay 80% of the plaintiff's and 1st defendant's costs of the motion
- 7 - THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CL 21431/66
REGISTRAR JUPP
29 May 2001 Anne Elizabeth Hyde v NRMA Insurance Limited & Woolworths Limited
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