ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Pescott (No.2) - [2015] VSC 206

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2009 04804

ABL NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 106 756 521) (in its capacity as Trustee of the Lighthouse Warehouse Trust No 8 (ENVIRONINVEST FINANCE)) & ors (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
EUAN PESCOTT	Defendant

- and –

EUAN PESCOTT	Plaintiff by Counterclaim
v
ABL NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 106 756 521) (in its capacity as Trustee of the Lighthouse Warehouse Trust No 8 (ENVIRONINVEST FINANCE)) & ors (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendant by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	DERHAM AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Pescott (No.2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 206

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena to former solicitors of defendant – Claim for client legal privilege – Whether privilege established – Whether privilege waived – Relevance to issue – No relevance.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs and the Defendants by Counterclaim	Dr O Bigos	Allens
The Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim appeared in person

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The defendant, Euan Pescott, claims that documents produced by his former solicitors, Millens Pty Ltd (‘Millens’), pursuant to a subpoena issued by the plaintiffs, are subject to client legal privilege (‘privilege’). The plaintiffs contend the privilege claim should not be upheld or, alternatively, that if the documents are privileged the privilege has been waived.

Factual Background

By order made on 22 October 2014 the defendant was given leave to file and serve a fourth further amended defence and counterclaim.[1] In that fourth amended defence and counterclaim, the defendant claims that the loan agreement the subject of the claim by the plaintiffs is voidable by reason of a number of matters and seeks orders that it be set aside.
[1]See ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v McKenzie (No.2) [2014] VSC 529.

The matters that are the foundation of the voidability of the loan agreement include misleading or deceptive conduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and abuse of trust and confidence. That alleged conduct was engaged in by the defendant’s brother, Mr Roger Pescott. He was at the time a director of Environinvest Ltd and of the lender of the loan, BEP Finance Pty Ltd. Mr Roger Pescott’s conduct is allegedly attributed to the lender. Importantly for the purposes of the defence, the defendant pleads, and in the hearing of this application amply demonstrated, that he is profoundly hearing impaired. He further pleads that he was inexperienced in matters of finance and business, entirely reliant upon his brother Mr Roger Pescott for guidance in matters of finance and business; did not understand the purport or effect of the loan agreement; did not have the benefit of legal advice in relation to it; could not service the loan contemplated by the agreement; and had no need to invest in the property funded by the loan (being an Environinvest Eucalypt Project managed investment scheme). Most of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Pescott (No.2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] VSC 206
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Pescott (No.2) involved a legal dispute where ABL Nominees sought to enforce a subpoena on former solicitors of the defendant, Pescott. The primary objective of ABL Nominees was to establish client legal privilege over certain documents held by Pescott's former solicitors, aiming to prevent their disclosure in the current proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which needed to determine several key legal issues.

The court had to decide whether client legal privilege had been properly established regarding the documents in question. This involved assessing whether the documents were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, and whether they were intended to be confidential. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any waiver of privilege had occurred, particularly if the documents had been disclosed to third parties or were otherwise made available in a manner that would negate the privilege. Another critical aspect was the relevance of these documents to the issues at hand, as privileged documents could still be subject to disclosure if they are pertinent to the proceedings.

The court found that client legal privilege was not established in relation to the documents in question. It held that the documents were not created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, and therefore did not meet the criteria for privilege. Furthermore, the court determined that any potential waiver of privilege was irrelevant, as the documents were not pertinent to the issues in the current proceedings. Consequently, the subpoena was set aside, and the documents were not disclosed to ABL Nominees.

The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the documents in question. The outcome reinforced the importance of establishing the criteria for client legal privilege and the conditions under which it may be waived. The court's ruling ensured that the balance between protecting client confidentiality and the need for transparency in legal proceedings was maintained.

Orders