DST Bluedoor v AMP (No 2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S ECI 2019 03205

DST BLUEDOOR PTY LTD (ACN 110 855 377)	Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
v
AMP SERVICES LIMITED (ACN 081 143 786)	Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 June 2021
DATE OF RULING:	18 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DST Bluedoor v AMP (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 499

---

EVIDENCE – Discovery and inspection – Legal professional privilege – Whether various internal documents privileged – Whether privilege waived – Section 122 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) - Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 - Standard Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v Antico (1993) 36 NSWLR 87 - Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited [2013] HCA 46 - Banksia Securities Limited v The Trust Company [2017] VSC 583 - Commercial sensitivity – Confidentiality - Exhibits containing commercially sensitive information provided to defendant’s legal representatives and independent expert – Defendant company seeks to grant access to employees – Plaintiff claims inspection would be commercially prejudicial - Cargill Australia Ltd v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 260.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S W Stuckey QC with Mr A Sykes of counsel	Gilbert + Tobin
For the Defendant	Mr M I Borsky QC with Mr L A Merrick of counsel	MinterEllison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

DST disclosure application.............................................................................................................. 5

Applicable Principles – privilege and waiver........................................................................... 5
Sample of documents................................................................................................................... 9
Document 5000.0001.0182................................................................................................... 9
AMP’s submissions................................................................................................ 9
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 10
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0182............................................................... 11

Document 5000.0001.0192................................................................................................. 12
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 12
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 13
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0192............................................................... 15

Document 5000.0001.0322................................................................................................. 19
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 19
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 20
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0322............................................................... 20

Document 5000.0001.0761................................................................................................. 21
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 21
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 21
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0761............................................................... 21

Document 5000.0001.0629................................................................................................. 22
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 22
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 23
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0629............................................................... 23

Document 5000.0001.0434................................................................................................. 24
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 24
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 25
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0434............................................................... 25

Document 5000.0001.0417................................................................................................. 26
AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 26
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 27
Analysis of document 5000.0001.0417............................................................... 27

AMP’s employee access application............................................................................................. 27

AMP’s submissions.............................................................................................. 28
DST’s submissions................................................................................................ 31
Analysis of AMP’s employee access application............................................. 35

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 44

HER HONOUR:

This ruling concerns two disputes about inspection of documents. DST Bluedoor, the plaintiff, seeks to inspect documents that AMP, the defendant, says are privileged. DST says the documents are not privileged. Alternatively, DST says that AMP has waived privilege. The first question for determination here is whether or not the documents are subject to legal professional privilege and if so, whether privilege has been waived.

The other dispute is that AMP seeks access to exhibits annexed to two witness statements filed on behalf of DST. DST says the documents are confidential and disclosure would provide AMP with a key unfair advantage in any future commercial negotiations. The second question for determination here is whether or not specified employees…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DST Bluedoor v AMP (No 2), the plaintiff sought discovery and inspection of various internal documents held by the defendant, AMP. The dispute centred around the issue of whether these documents were privileged and, if so, whether any privilege had been waived. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the internal documents were protected by legal professional privilege and whether any such privilege had been waived. The court examined the nature of the documents, their purpose, and the circumstances under which they were created and shared. The court also had to determine whether the privilege had been waived by AMP through any actions or omissions, and whether the plaintiff had met the burden of proving waiver.

The court found that the internal documents in question were indeed privileged, as they were communications between AMP and its legal representatives for the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. However, the court held that there had been a partial waiver of privilege by AMP, as some of these documents had already been disclosed to the plaintiff's legal representatives and an independent expert. The court considered this disclosure to be in the context of the litigation, thus constituting a waiver of privilege for those specific documents. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the inspection of the remaining privileged documents would cause significant prejudice to AMP.

In conclusion, the court granted the plaintiff's application for discovery and inspection of the internal documents that had already been disclosed, as well as those documents for which privilege had been waived. However, the court denied the plaintiff's application for inspection of the remaining privileged documents, finding that such inspection would cause significant prejudice to AMP. The court ordered AMP to provide the plaintiff with the documents that were not privileged, or for which privilege had been waived, within a specified timeframe.

Continue reading DST Bluedoor v AMP (No 2)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established