Z v NSW Crimes Commission [2004] NSWSC 1335

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Z v NSW Crimes Commission [2004] NSWSC 1335 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 December 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 February 2004 JURISDICTION: Common Law JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J DECISION : Summons dismissed

CATCHWORDS : PRIVILEGE - Identity of client - Whether protected at common law from disclosure - If so protected whether overridden by specific provision in Crime Commission legislation LEGISLATION CITED : NSW Crimes Commission Act 1985 Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 Commissioner of Taxation v Coombes [1999] 92 FCR 240 CASES CITED : Daniels Corporation v Australian Consumer and Competition Commission [2002] 77 ALJR 40 Esso Resources Australia Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 PARTIES : Z (Plaintiff) New South Wales Crime Commission (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12568/03 COUNSEL : A Howen (Plaintiff) P Singleton (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Bolzan & Dimitri (Plaintiff) J M Giorgiutti (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Thursday 5 February 2004

12568/03 - Z v NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for an order of review in respect of a decision made by a commissioner conducting a hearing pursuant to the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 (the Act). Relevant provisions of the Act are: "19 Applications to Supreme Court (1) Where: (a) a person claims to be entitled to refuse to furnish information or produce a document that the person is required to furnish or produce pursuant to a notice under section 10, (b) ….. (c) a person claims to be entitled to refuse to answer a question put to the person, or to produce a document that the person was required to produce, at a hearing before the Commission, the Commission shall decide as soon as practicable whether in its opinion the claim is justified and notify the person of its decision. (2) If the person is dissatisfied with the decision, the person may apply to the Supreme Court for an order of review in respect of the decision.