Bradley Phillips P/l and Anor v Burn Brite Lights (Vic) P/l and Anor No. Scciv-99-261

In Bradley Phillips P/l and Anor v Burn Brite Lights (Vic) P/l and Anor, the court addressed an application by the third party regarding the description of documents discovered by the defendant, specifically those claimed to be protected by legal professional privilege. The defendant had filed various lists of documents, including claims for privilege. The third party sought a more detailed description of these documents, focusing on those relevant to specific paragraphs in their further amended statement of claim. The legal issues centered on the adequacy of the descriptions provided by the defendant and whether the principles established in Kadlunga Proprietors and Ors v Electricity Trust of South Australia applied to the newly introduced Supreme Court Rules 58A.

The court found that the descriptions provided by the defendant were insufficient to determine whether the documents were properly subject to a claim for legal professional privilege. The descriptions were too general and did not meet the standard set by Kadlunga, which required descriptions that would enable assessment without disclosing document contents. The court also considered whether the decision in Kadlunga applied to the newer Rule 58A, but concluded that it was not necessary to refer the matter to the Full Court or state a case. Instead, the court relied on Rule 58A.07, which allows for a supplementary list of documents to be filed if it is in the interests of justice. The court determined that it was in the interests of justice to order a more specific identification and description of the documents, allowing the third party to assess whether privilege had been properly claimed. The court emphasized that the descriptions must still avoid disclosing the contents of the documents.

In conclusion, the court ordered the defendant to file a supplementary list of documents with more specific identification and descriptions, focusing on those relevant to the issues raised in paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 of the further amended third party statement of claim. The court also noted that it would hear the parties regarding costs.