Admark Property Group Pty Ltd v GJ Building and Contracting Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2016] NSWSC 1885
•27 June 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Admark Property Group Pty Ltd v GJ Building and Contracting Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1885
[2016] NSWSC 1885
27 June 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved Admark Property Group Pty Ltd suing GJ Building and Contracting Pty Ltd for damages arising from a contract. The dispute centred around a subpoena for production issued by Admark, seeking documents from GJ Building. The subpoena targeted communications between GJ Building and its solicitors. GJ Building resisted the subpoena, asserting that the communications were privileged and that its director, who was the only party named in the subpoena, was not entitled to claim privilege on behalf of the company.
The court had to determine whether the director of a company could claim privilege over documents that were exchanged between the company and its solicitors. The central issue was whether the director, as an individual, was entitled to assert privilege on behalf of the company in the context of a subpoena for production. This required the court to examine the nature of legal professional privilege and the extent to which it could be claimed by an individual director of a company.
The court found that the director of the company was not entitled to claim privilege over communications between the company and its solicitors. The court emphasised that legal professional privilege is a right that belongs to the client, which in this case was the company, not the director as an individual. The court held that the privilege could only be claimed by the company itself or through its legal representatives. Consequently, the subpoena for production was valid, and the director’s assertion of privilege was unsuccessful.
The court ordered that GJ Building comply with the subpoena for production and provide the requested documents to Admark. The court's decision underscored the distinction between the privilege that belongs to the company and that which may be claimed by an individual director. The ruling was a clear affirmation of the principle that legal professional privilege is a right of the client, the company, and not an individual director acting alone.
The court had to determine whether the director of a company could claim privilege over documents that were exchanged between the company and its solicitors. The central issue was whether the director, as an individual, was entitled to assert privilege on behalf of the company in the context of a subpoena for production. This required the court to examine the nature of legal professional privilege and the extent to which it could be claimed by an individual director of a company.
The court found that the director of the company was not entitled to claim privilege over communications between the company and its solicitors. The court emphasised that legal professional privilege is a right that belongs to the client, which in this case was the company, not the director as an individual. The court held that the privilege could only be claimed by the company itself or through its legal representatives. Consequently, the subpoena for production was valid, and the director’s assertion of privilege was unsuccessful.
The court ordered that GJ Building comply with the subpoena for production and provide the requested documents to Admark. The court's decision underscored the distinction between the privilege that belongs to the company and that which may be claimed by an individual director. The ruling was a clear affirmation of the principle that legal professional privilege is a right of the client, the company, and not an individual director acting alone.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Legal Privilege
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Morton v Bolinda Publishing Pty Limited
[2017] FCA 187
Mercantile Mutual Insurance (NSW Workers Compensation) Ltd v Murray
[2004] NSWCA 151
Bradley Phillip Ingram v Y Twelve Pty Limited
[2013] NSWSC 928