Bradford v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2018 01134

VICKI ADELE BRADFORD and JONATHAN ALAN UPHILL	Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim
v
DEVLOT 17 PTY LTD (ACN 126 265 790)	Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Matthews JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2020, further written submissions on 28 February, 11 and 12 March 2020
DATE OF RULING:	7 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bradford & Anor v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 246

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Legal professional privilege – Issue waiver – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 118, 119 – Application of earlier ruling to specific documents.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Lorbeer	Aitken Partners
For the Defendant	Mr P B Murdoch QC, with Mr P H Wallis	Clayton Utz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 3

Relevant information about the proceding............................................................................... 3
Documents sought pursuant to the Subpoenas........................................................................ 5
Objections to the Subpoenas........................................................................................................ 6
Aitkens Subpoena................................................................................................................ 6
Apteds Subpoena................................................................................................................. 7

Previous hearing regarding the Subpoenas and ruling regarding issue waiver................. 8
The hearing on 20 February 2020.............................................................................................. 12
Description of the content of the Aitkens Table..................................................................... 14
Matters/issues to be determined in this decision.................................................................. 14

Applicable principles...................................................................................................................... 15

Applicability of the Evidence Act............................................................................................... 17
The Court’s inspection of disputed documents...................................................................... 17

The parties’ submissions in respect of the scope of waiver.................................................... 18

Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................ 18
Scope of issue waiver........................................................................................................ 18
Associative waiver............................................................................................................. 20

Defendant’s submissions........................................................................................................... 20
Scope of issue waiver........................................................................................................ 20
Associative waiver............................................................................................................. 22

Plaintiffs’ submissions in reply................................................................................................. 23

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 24

General comments regarding application of Issue Waiver Ruling..................................... 24
General consideration regarding associative waiver............................................................. 27
Application of Issue Waiver Ruling to particular documents.............................................. 28

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 29

SCHEDULE 1...................................................................................................................................... 1

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

Introduction

This decision concerns an objection by the Plaintiffs to inspection of certain documents produced by Aitken Partners Pty Ltd trading as Aitken Partners (‘Aitkens’) pursuant to a subpoena issued on 21 January 2020 by the Defendant (‘Aitkens Subpoena’). Aitkens are the solicitors for the Plaintiffs in this proceeding.

Of relevance is another subpoena issued on the same date by the Defendant, addressed to Elizabeth Susan Apted trading as Apteds Lawyers (‘Apteds’) (‘Apteds Subpoena’; with the Aitkens Subpoena, the ‘Subpoenas’). Apteds Lawyers were the previous solicitors for the Plaintiffs in relation to the transactions and dealings which are the subject matter of this proceeding.

The matter for decision here is whether certain documents produced by Aitkens and over which the Plaintiffs make a claim for legal professional privilege are able to be inspected by the Defendant as a consequence of that privilege having been waived. This is explained in further detail below, however it is sufficient at this point to note that at a hearing on 11 February 2020 in relation to the objections to the Subpoenas, I made rulings, ex tempore, in respect of waiver of…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradford v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Bradford, objected to a subpoena issued by the defendant, Devlot 17 Pty Ltd, seeking the production of specific documents. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The core issue was whether the documents in question were protected by legal professional privilege, and if so, whether the defendant had waived this privilege by disclosing other privileged documents.

The court needed to determine if the documents were subject to legal professional privilege under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). Additionally, it had to consider whether the defendant had waived the privilege by previously issuing privileged documents to a third party. The court examined sections 118 and 119 of the Act, which deal with the application of privilege and the circumstances under which it may be lost.

In its decision, the court found that the documents in question were indeed protected by legal professional privilege. It further determined that the defendant had not waived this privilege by the issuance of other documents. The court held that the waiver of privilege must be intentional and clear, and the defendant had not met this threshold. Consequently, the subpoena was quashed, and the plaintiff was not required to produce the documents. The ruling underscored the importance of clear and intentional waiver in cases involving legal professional privilege.

Continue reading Bradford v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established