or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court: (a) orders the disclosure of the transcript of an examination by the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, on the grounds that the examination had not been conducted in circumstances of confidentiality, and had not been conducted for the dominant purpose of contemplating litigation; and (b) directs that the defendants provide discovery of five further documents, subject to certain redactions, on the grounds that they were not entitled to rely on common interest privilege or litigation privilege.
Judgment covers two rulings in respect of applications challenging privilege claimed in the related proceedings - plaintiff challenges litigation privilege claimed by the defendant over the transcript of an examination carried out by the Official Assignee pursuant to s. 21 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 of vendor dated 28th October, 2014 - in the proceedings secondly named in the title hereof, an application by the Official Assignee challenging litigation privilege claimed by the plaintiff, in respect of three of five documents listed in the affidavit of discovery of sworn on 14th May, 2018, and also challenging legal advice privilege claimed by the plaintiff in respect of the other two of the plaintiff's documents - history of proceedings - principles applicable to litigation privilege - Official Assignee cannot simply place reliance on the Opinion of learned counsel, however expert that may be, to support and maintain a claim of litigation privilege - analysis of documents and level of privilege - litigation or common interest privilege does not apply to first three documents - principles of legal advice privilege - fourth and fifth documents disclosed but partially redacted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.