Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12 Hearing dates: 3 November 2015 Date of orders: 02 February 2016 Decision date: 02 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Brereton J Decision: (1) The second plaintiff may have access to the documents produced by Sceales & Co on subpoena, including those listed in schedule 1, and including in electronic form. (2) By 16 February 2016 the second plaintiff file and serve any further evidence (arising out of the documents produced by Sceales & Co) in support of her motion filed 3 September 2015. (3) By 16 February 2016 the second plaintiff lodge and serve any further written submissions in respect of the 3 September 2015 motion. (4) By 2 March 2016 the first defendant file and serve any evidence in response to the evidence referred to in order (2) above. (5) By 2 March 2016 the first defendant lodge and serve any written submission in response to those referred to in order (3) above. (6) The proceedings be listed for the remainder of the hearing of the 3 September 2015 motion on a date to be fixed. (7) The costs of and incidental to the hearing on 3 November 2015 be the second plaintiff's costs in the proceedings on the 3 September 2015 motion. Catchwords: EVIDENCE –privilege – legal professional privilege – subpoenas – proof of claim for legal professional privilege – onus of proof – evidentiary requirements – procedure for claiming privilege in respect of documents produced on subpoena – when objection to be taken – held, objection to be taken prior to production of documents to the court - where claimant tenders no admissible evidence of purpose for which documents created but asks court to inspect documents for which it claims privilege - uphold claim on basis of inspection – whether that course permissible - held, not permissible Legislation Cited: (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s 119 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 1.9 Cases Cited: Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 102 Alliance Craton Explorer Pty Ltd v Quasar Resources Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 90; (2011) 275 LSJS 166 Attorney-General for the Northern Territory v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2004] NSWSC 1089 AWB v Cole (2006) 152 FCR 382 Bailey v Department of Land and Water Conservation [2009] NSWCA 100; (2009) 74 NSWLR 333 Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 88; (2007) 242 ALR 601 Carbotech Australia Pty Ltd v Yates [2008] NSWSC 1151 Cassaniti v Paragalli [2006] NSWSC 160; (2006) 229 ALR 416 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 3; (1997) 188 CLR 501 Daniels Corporation International v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 213 CLR 543 District Council of Mallala v Livestock Markets Ltd [2006] SASC 80; (2006) 94 SASR 258 Doe d Carter v James 2 M & Rob 47 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Fruehauf Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 359 Gardner v Irvin (1878) LR 4 Ex D 49 Gold Securities Australia Pty Ltd v Siebe plc (NSWSC, Giles J, 31 October 1990, unreported, BC9001805) Gouraud v Edison Gower Bell Telephone Company of Europe (1888) 57 LJ Ch 498 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 Gray v BNY Trust Company of Australia Limited [2009] NSWSC 789; (2009) 76 NSWLR 586 Griffith v Rickettts (1849) 7 Hare 299 Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 646; (2015) 106 ACSR 207 Hartogen Energy Ltd (in liq) v Australian Gas Light Co (1992) 36 FCR 557 Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 796 Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 Holmes v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 19 ATR 1278 Krok v Szaintop Homes Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] VSC 16 Lazenby v Zammit [1987] Tas R 54 Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2002] VSCA 59; (2002) 4 VR 332 National Crime Authority v S [1991] FCA 234; (1991) 29 FCR 203; (1991) 100 ALR 151 National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind and Hill; Waind v Hill and National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 O'Born v Commissioner for Government Transport (1959) 77 WN(NSW) 81 O'Rourke v Derbyshire [1920] AC 581 Pickering v Noyes (1823) 1 B & C 262 R v Petroulias (No 22) (2007) 176 A Crim R 309 Re Londonderry's Settlement [1965] Ch 918; [1964] 3 All ER 855 Re Southland Coal Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 899; (2006) 203 FLR 1; 59 ACSR 87 Rouse v IOOF Australia Trustees Ltd (No 3) [1999] SASC 208 Schreuder v Murray (No 2) [2009] WASCA 145; (2009) 41 WAR 169 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Weston [2011] NSWSC 1083; (2011) 81 NSWLR 526 Talbot v Marshfield (1865) 62 ER 728 The Shed People Pty Ltd v Turner [2000] SASC 196; (2000) 34 ACSR 609 Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (No 2) (1989) 21 FCR 306; (1989) 88 ALR 90 Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 147; (2007) 161 FCR 122; 161 FLR 122 Volant v Soyer 13 CB 231 Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 W Dennis and Sons Ltd v West Norfolk Farmers' Manure and Chemical Co-operative Co Ltd [1943] Ch 220 Westminster Airways Ltd v Kuwait Oil Co Ltd [1951] 1 KB 134 Woollahra Municipal Council v Westpac Banking Corporation (1994) 33 NSWLR 529 Yunghanns v Elfic Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] VSC 113 Texts Cited: RJ Desiatnik, Legal Professional Privilege in Australia (1999) A. Moffitt, "Procedures at a common law trial regarding subpoenas duces tecum, notices to produce and documents of parties and strangers", in H.H. Glass (ed) Seminars on Evidence (LBC, 1970) Phipson on Evidence 14th ed (1990) Roscoe, Evidence in Civil Actions, 20th ed P.M. Wood, "Challenging subpoenas duces tecum: is there a third party view?" (1984) 10 Syd Law Rev 379 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: John Langley Hancock (first plaintiff) Bianca Hope Rinehart (second plaintiff) Gina Hope Rinehart (first defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Withers w P Meagher (plaintiffs) BR McClintock w SA Lawrance (first defendant)