Bradford v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd (No 3)

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 AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7, 9 June 2021
DATE OF RULING:	25 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bradford v Devlot 17 Pty Ltd (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 368	(First Revision 12 July 2021)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal professional privilege – Application to ‘clawback’ privileged documents disclosed to adversarial party – Whether disclosure of privileged documents inadvertent – Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303 applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal professional privilege – Whether plaintiffs’ selective disclosure of privileged material constitutes a broad waiver of privilege in undisclosed documents – Whether inconsistent to maintain privilege claim – Merial, Inc v Intervet International B.V. (No 2) [2016] FCA 1070 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr D.P. Lorbeer	Aitken Partners
For the Defendant	Mr P.H. Wallis QC with Mr E. Gisonda	Clayton Utz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

What this proceeding is about..................................................................................................... 3
Relevant procedural background............................................................................................... 4

The Return Application.................................................................................................................... 7

The parties’ general submissions regarding the Return Application................................. 10
The Plaintiffs’ general submissions regarding the Return Application.................... 11
The Defendant’s general submissions regarding the Return Application................ 12

The Gorman Return Documents............................................................................................... 15
The Apteds documents.............................................................................................................. 24
The Apted Erroneous Approach............................................................................................... 27
Plaintiffs’ evidence............................................................................................................ 27
The Defendant’s evidence................................................................................................ 32
Submissions........................................................................................................................ 35
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 37

The Erroneous Apted Inclusion................................................................................................ 43
The Aitkens documents.............................................................................................................. 46
The Aitkens 13 Feb Bundle........................................................................................................ 49
The Aitkens 17 Feb Bundle........................................................................................................ 52
The Aitkens 30 Jan Bundle......................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion regarding the Return Application....................................................................... 57

Broader Waiver Application.......................................................................................................... 57

The Defendant’s evidence.......................................................................................................... 58
The Defendant’s submissions.................................................................................................... 59
The Plaintiffs’ evidence.............................................................................................................. 65
The Plaintiffs’ submissions........................................................................................................ 68
Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 74
Whether the disclosed documents which the Defendant says are privileged are privileged.................................................................................................................................. 75
Whether there has been selective disclosure................................................................. 78
Whether it is unfair for the Plaintiffs to selectively maintain privilege in the circumstances.................................................................................................................................. 79

Conclusion regarding the Broader Waiver Application....................................................... 82

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 83

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

These reasons concern two matters, both concerning legal professional privilege, which have arisen in the course of this proceeding.

The first matter is an application by the Plaintiffs to clawback certain documents over which they maintain a claim to legal professional privilege which have been disclosed to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs say that the disclosure of these documents to the Defendant is inadvertent and that the documents should be returned to them (‘Return Application’). The Defendant resists this.

The second matter is an application by the Defendant for a ruling that the Plaintiffs have waived privilege over all of the documents produced to the Court by the Plaintiffs’ current solicitors, Aitken Partners (‘Aitkens’), and their former solicitors, Apteds Lawyers (‘Apteds’)…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Bradford, a plaintiff, brought an action against Devlot 17 Pty Ltd, the defendant, concerning a dispute arising from a commercial transaction. The central issue in this case was the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents by the plaintiff to the defendant and whether this inadvertent disclosure resulted in a waiver of the privilege. The court was tasked with determining whether the privilege was inadvertently waived and, if so, whether it could be reinstated.

The court examined the principle established in Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd, which suggests that inadvertent disclosure does not necessarily result in a waiver of privilege. However, the court also considered whether the plaintiffs' selective disclosure of privileged material constituted a broad waiver of privilege in undisclosed documents. This issue was assessed against the precedent set in Merial, Inc v Intervet International B.V., where the Federal Court found that selective disclosure did not necessarily amount to a broad waiver. The court had to decide if maintaining the privilege claim was inconsistent with the plaintiffs' conduct.

After considering the arguments and applicable case law, the court concluded that the inadvertent disclosure did not result in a waiver of privilege. The plaintiffs’ selective disclosure of privileged material did not constitute a broad waiver, as the disclosure was not broad enough to indicate an intention to waive privilege over the undisclosed documents. The court found that the plaintiffs could reinstate the privilege over the documents in question. The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' privilege over the disclosed documents was reinstated, and the defendant was directed to return the disclosed documents to the plaintiffs.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established