Carey v Korda

In the case of Carey v Korda, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the extent of legal professional privilege over documents related to a receivership and management arrangement. The primary issue was whether the privilege extended to the solicitors engaged by the receivers and managers, and if so, whether this privilege could be maintained in the face of a claim by the liquidators of the company for access to the solicitors' bills of costs and recharge schedules. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the privilege had been waived or abrogated by statute.

The court delved into the principles of legal professional privilege, particularly focusing on the distinction between the privilege of the client and that of the lawyer. The court noted that the privilege may be invoked by the client to resist the disclosure of documents that reveal privileged communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. It also considered whether the solicitors were engaged to act for the company or solely for the receivers and managers. The court found that if the solicitors were acting for the company, the privilege could potentially extend to the documents in question. However, if the solicitors were acting solely for the receivers and managers, the privilege might not apply to the documents relevant to the company's affairs.

The court concluded that the privilege was not waived or abrogated by statute. It determined that the solicitors were engaged to act for the company, thus extending the privilege to the documents in question. The court further held that the nature of the privileged communication could be inferred from the bills of costs, making them subject to the privilege. The Full Court found that the privilege had not been waived, and the liquidators' claim for access to the documents was accordingly dismissed.

In summary, the court upheld the legal professional privilege over the solicitors' bills of costs and recharge schedules, finding that the privilege was applicable and had not been waived or abrogated by statute.