Rodriguez & Sons v Queensland Bulk Water Supply authority t/as Seqwater (No 14) [2018] NSWSC 939

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rodriguez & Sons v Queensland Bulk Water Supply authority t/as Seqwater (No 14) [2018] NSWSC 939 Hearing dates: 15 and 18 June 2018 Date of orders: 20 June 2018 Decision date: 20 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: Claims that documents protected by client legal privilege upheld: see paragraph [75]. Catchwords: CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE – claimed by Seqwest in context of post-inquiry review where litigation anticipated – documents sent to Allens for dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice to advance client's position

CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE – claimed by employee of Seqwest who also had right to respond to draft review report – drafts send to himself by email created for dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 117, 118, 122 Cases Cited: Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Limited (No 4) [2014] FCA 796 AWB Ltd v Cole (2006) 152 FCR 382; [2006] FCA 571 AWB Limited v Cole (No 5) (2006) 155 FCR 30; [2006] FCA 1234 Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch 317 Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Webb (1996) 39 NSWLR 601 New South Wales v Jackson [2007] NSWCA 279 The Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543; [2002] HCA 49 Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) [2005] 1 AC 610 Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 16) [2013] NSWSC 418 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (First Defendant) Representation: Counsel: RA Yezerski/EL Olivier (Plaintiff) AM Pomerenke QC/D Piggott (Defendant)