BT Australasia Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 8) - [1998] FCA 295

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EVIDENCE - client legal privilege - loss of privilege - whether substance of confidential communication was disclosed - whether holder of privilege impliedly consented to disclosure of confidential communication - whether disclosure of confidential communication was inadvertent.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 121, 122, 126

Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins, 2 March 1998, unreported (FCA/FC), followed.
Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12 (S Ct NSW/Rolfe J), cited.
Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475, cited.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon [1991] 1 WLR 73 (CA), cited.
Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83, cited.
Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership [1987] 1 WLR 1027 (CA), cited.
Hooker Corporation Ltd v Darling Harbour Authority (1987) 9 NSWLR 538, cited.
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgeland Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217 (FCA/FC), cited.
Woollahra Municipal Council v Westpac Banking Corporation (1992) 33 NSWLR 529, cited.

BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD V STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

NG 572 OF 1997

JUDGMENT NO 8

SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
1 APRIL 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 572 OF 1995

BETWEEN:   BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
  APPLICANT

AND              STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
  FIRST RESPONDENT

  TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
  SECOND RESPONDENT

BETWEEN:
AND:
BETWEEN:

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM

BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED
FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM

BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM

BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED
CROSS CLAIMANT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS RESPONDENT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
CROSS CLAIMANT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS RESPONDENT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
CROSS CLAIMANT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM

AND:
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CROSS RESPONDENT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS CLAIMANT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM

AND:
BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED
CROSS RESPONDENT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS CLAIMANT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM

AND:
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
CROSS RESPONDENT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM

BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS CLAIMANT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM

AND:
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CROSS RESPONDENT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

PLACE: SYDNEY

DATE:
1 APRIL, 1998

JUDGMENT NO 8

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The State produce for inspection by BTA and BT plc the original, and provide to BTA and BT plc copies, of documents PTA 005 024 0138-0176 and PTA 006 003 0137-0375, referred to in par 24 of the statement of Mr Lopert dated 28 November 1997.

The State pay the costs of BTA and BT plc of the motion.

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

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BT Australasia Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 8)

Details

AGLC: BT Australasia Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 8) [1998] FCA 295
Case: [1998] FCA 295
Decision Date: 1 APRIL, 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, BT Australasia Pty Ltd and BT plc, brought an action against the defendant, the State of New South Wales, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute revolves around allegations of copyright infringement in relation to the development and use of the I-Way system, a traffic monitoring and management system. The plaintiffs claim that the State unlawfully used their intellectual property without permission, causing financial damage.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the State had indeed infringed the plaintiffs' copyright and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they sought. The court had to determine whether the documents produced by the State contained evidence of the alleged infringement, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to inspect these documents and receive compensation for the alleged breach.

In its judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs were indeed entitled to inspect the specified documents. The court held that the documents in question were relevant to the allegations of copyright infringement and that their production was necessary for the plaintiffs to adequately defend their claims. The court also ordered the State to pay the costs of the motion to the plaintiffs, acknowledging the importance of the inspection in the context of the broader litigation.

The court's orders reflect its determination that the plaintiffs were entitled to inspect the documents and that the State must bear the costs associated with this inspection. This decision is pivotal in allowing the plaintiffs to further their claims and underscores the necessity for the State to address the allegations of copyright infringement.

Orders

Orders of the court

The State produce for inspection by BTA and BT plc the original, and provide to BTA and BT plc copies, of documents PTA 005 024 0138-0176 and PTA 006 003 0137-0375, referred to in par 24 of the statement of Mr Lopert dated 28 November 1997.

The State pay the costs of BTA and BT plc of the motion.

Note:

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 572 OF 1995

BETWEEN: BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD APPLICANT AND STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES FIRST RESPONDENT TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
BETWEEN: AND: BETWEEN:		STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIRST CROSS CLAIM BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM
AND:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO SECOND CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS CLAIMANT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM
AND:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO THIRD CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS CLAIMANT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM
AND:		STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS RESPONDENT TO FOURTH CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS CLAIMANT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM
AND:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO FIFTH CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM
AND:		BT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED CROSS RESPONDENT TO SIXTH CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM
AND:		BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC CROSS RESPONDENT TO SEVENTH CROSS CLAIM
BETWEEN:		TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED CROSS CLAIMANT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM
AND:		STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES CROSS RESPONDENT TO EIGHTH CROSS CLAIM
JUDGE:		SACKVILLE J
PLACE:		SYDNEY
DATE:		1 APRIL, 1998