Rhyse Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v McLaughlins

Rhyse Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v McLaughlins (A Firm) & Anor [2002] QCA 122 (5 April 2002)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rhyse Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v McLaughlins (A Firm) & Anor [2002] QCA 122

PARTIES:

RHYSE HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 051 910 500

( First Plaintiff / not a party to appeal)

MARGARET BAINBRIDGE

(Second Plaintiff / not a party to appeal)

OTTO SYROWATKA

(Third Plaintiff / not a party to appeal)

V

STANTON HILLIER PARKER (QLD) PTY LTD

ACN 010 508 826

(Third Party / Respondent)

MCLAUGHLINS (A FIRM)

(First Defendant / First Appellant)

MCLAUGHLINS NOMINEES PTY LTD

ACN 010 668 845

(Second Defendant / Second Appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6146 of 2001

SC No 10865 of 1996

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Byrne J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE - FACTS EXCLUDED FROM PROOF - ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE - PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENCE - LEGAL PROFESSION - WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE - whether claim of legal privilege protected documents related to investigations by solicitors which had been referred to in the appellants' pleadings and which supported its claim against the third party respondents that it was reasonable to compromise the plaintiffs' claim. PROCEDURE - DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION - GROUNDS FOR RESISTING PRODUCTION - LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE - appeal against interlocutory order granting an application for inspection of documents in which legal professional privilege was claimed - where the appellants' statement of claim referred to investigations by their solicitors which induced the appellants to settle the plaintiffs' action against them - whether those references in the statement of claim put in issue the substance of legal advice received by the appellants - whether there is inconsistency between such reliance and the continued claim of privilege with respect to the investigations made by the appellants' legal advisers and the resultant advice.

Attorney-General (N.T.) v Maurice [1986] HCA 80; (1986) 161 CLR 475, followed

Bayliss v Cassidy (No 2) [2000] 1 QdR 464 , followed

Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 2KB 314, followed

Goldberg v Ng [1995] HCA 39; (1995) 185 CLR 83, followed

Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1

Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Limited v Rocco Pezzano Pty Limited [1998] HCA 38; (1998) 192 CLR 603, applied

COUNSEL:

P H Morrison QC with H P Bowskill for the appellants

D R Cooper SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the appellants

McCabe Terrill for the respondent