Cape Wools SA v KPMG Corporate Finance (Vic) Pty Ltd

The case of Cape Wools SA v KPMG Corporate Finance (Vic) Pty Ltd involves a dispute regarding the discovery of documents and the claim of legal professional privilege. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Cape Wools, sought the discovery of certain documents from the defendant, KPMG, which was resisted on the basis of legal professional privilege. The case raised specific questions about the procedural requirements for making a claim of legal professional privilege and the form in which such a claim must be made.

The court was required to determine the legal standards for stating the grounds of a claim of privilege in an affidavit and whether the defendant had sufficiently identified the privileged documents. In particular, the court needed to assess whether the defendant's affidavit complied with the requirements set out in Rule 29 and Form 29B of the Supreme Court Rules. The key issue was whether the defendant had related the grounds of the claim of privilege to the individual documents in a manner that was sufficient to enable the court to assess the privilege claim.

The court held that the defendant's affidavit did not adequately relate the grounds of the claim of privilege to the individual documents. The court found that the defendant's description of the privileged documents was too general and did not provide sufficient detail to enable the court to assess the privilege claim. The court concluded that the defendant had not met the requirements of Rule 29 and Form 29B, which require that the grounds of the privilege be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether the privilege applies. The court further noted that the defendant's affidavit did not appropriately describe the privileged documents in a manner that would allow the opposing party to identify and challenge the privilege claim.

The court ordered that the defendant provide a revised affidavit that sufficiently related the grounds of the claim of privilege to the individual documents and provided an appropriate description of the privileged documents. The court also noted that the defendant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements for making a claim of legal professional privilege could have implications for the defendant's costs.