Adelaide Steamship Co v Spalvins

Link copied
Case Copied 43 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUBPOENAS  -  application for leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim - applicant’s reasons for seeking leave - respondents’ opposing application and challenging reasons - use of subpoena process at interlocutory stage - allegations for “entrapment” by applicant - whether subpoenas oppressive or fishing - whether legal professional privilege has been waived.

Australian Securities Commission Act (1989) (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Rev.) 1961 (vol viii, par 2327)

Federal Court Rules O 27 r 2

Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Price Waterhouse (1996) 189 LSJS 364
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674
Attorney General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
KC, KS, KF and KL v Shiley Incorporated and Pfizer Incorporated (unreported, judgment delivered 11 July 1997).
Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83.
Commissioner of Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Hunt v Walk (1985) 40 SASR 489
Finnie v Dalglish (1982) 1 NSWLR 400
Lucas Industries v Hewitt (1978) 18 ALR 555 at
Spencer Motors Pty Ltd v LNG Industries (1982) 2 NSWLR 921
Southern Pacific Hotel Services Inc v Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation Ltd (1984) 1 NSWLR 710
Arhill Pty Ltd v General Financial Company Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 545
c.f.Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd v Murphy (1993) 2 VR 419
Pickering v Edmunds (1994) 63 SASR 357

THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY v JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS and  MICHAEL JAMES KENT and NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD and KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL and MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG and DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS and DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU
No SG 3036 of 1994

O’LOUGHLIN J
ADELAIDE
1 AUGUST 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
  )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY     )          No SG3036  of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:

THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED

Applicants

AND:

JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS

First Respondent

AND:

MICHAEL JAMES KENT

Second Respondent

AND:

NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD

Third Respondent

AND:

KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL

Fourth Respondent

AND:

MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG

Fifth Respondent

AND:

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS

Sixth Respondent

AND:

DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU

Seventh Respondent

JUDGE:         O’LOUGHLIN J
PLACE:         ADELAIDE
DATED:        1 AUGUST 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:

  1. That the subpoenas be set aside in part in terms consistent with these reasons.

  2. That the applicant bring into Court within 14 days short Minutes of Order reflecting the decision of the Court.

  3. All questions relating to the costs of and incidental to the subpoenas be reserved for further consideration.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
  )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY     )          No SG 3036 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:

THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED

Applicants

AND:

JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS

First Respondent

AND:

MICHAEL JAMES KENT

Second Respondent

AND:

NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD

Third Respondent

AND:

KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL

Fourth Respondent

AND:

MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG

Fifth Respondent

AND:

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS

Sixth Respondent

AND:

DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adelaide Steamship Co v Spalvins 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
[1997] FCA 755
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Steamship Co v Spalvins concerned an application by the Australian Securities Commission (ASC), acting on behalf of the Adelaide Steamship Company, for leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim. The respondents opposed the application and issued subpoenas seeking various documents from the ASC. The Court had to decide whether the subpoenas were oppressive, fishing, or if legal professional privilege had been waived. The Court found that while some documents were protected by legal professional privilege, others had been waived by implication. The subpoenas were set aside in part, with specific paragraphs either answered or set aside based on the Court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.