Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Oswal (No 7)

The case of Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Oswal (No 7) involved the question of whether certain emails were subject to common law legal professional privilege. The dispute arose in the Federal Court of Australia and concerned whether third parties had access to these emails and whether any agency or waiver of confidentiality had occurred. The primary issue was whether the documents in question, which were produced pursuant to subpoenas, were privileged under the common law. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the copying of communications to or by non-clients had resulted in a loss of confidentiality or waiver of privilege, and whether the persons who caused the documents to be provided were acting as agents of the client. The court had to consider if the persons who received these communications were authorised to keep them confidential.

The court concluded that the documents in question were indeed privileged as they were provided for the purpose of giving legal advice to the client. The copying of communications to other parties did not result in a loss of confidentiality or waiver of privilege, as these parties were agents or authorised to receive the communications and keep them confidential. The court found no evidence of fraud or intent to circumvent legal professional privilege. Consequently, the client was entitled to the interlocutory order sought, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

The court's orders were that the documents in question were privileged on the basis that they were subject to legal professional privilege pursuant to the common law. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.