SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Elvin v Vuleta |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 84 |
Hearing Date: | 12 March 2024 |
Decision Date: | 28 March 2024 |
Before: | McWilliam J |
Decision: | (1) Within 7 days of the date of these orders being made, the first defendant is to provide to the second and third defendants a copy (electronic or otherwise) of the remaining documents over which privilege continues to be maintained. (2) The second and third defendants are to confirm whether they maintain their objection to the discovery of any, or all, of the documents referred to in Order 1 on the grounds of client legal privilege within 7 days of their receipt. (3) The applications filed by the plaintiff on 30 January 2024, 27 February 2024 and 1 March 2024 in relation to discovery and particulars are otherwise dismissed. (4) Costs of the applications are reserved. |
Catchwords: | EVIDENCE – PRIVILEGES – Legal professional privilege – Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – pre-trial discovery – whether litigation or advice privilege attaches PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Defences – denial of allegations – whether better particulars required |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 406(1), 407, 409, 430, 434, 441, 447(1), 606, 608, 609, 609(4), 610, 621(2)(b), 621(2)(e), 621(3) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) Div 3.10.1, ss 117(1), 118, 119, 122, 122(1), 122(2), 122(5)(b), 122(5)(c), 125, 126, 131A |
Cases Cited: | Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 AWB Limited v Cole (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234; 155 FCR 30 Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd v Auspine Ltd [2008] VSCA 59 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Spotless Services Limited (1996) 186 CLR 404 Commonwealth v Vance [2005] ACTCA 35; 158 ACTR 47 Franks v Warringah Council [2010] NSWSC 1318 GR Capital Group Pty Ltd v Xinfeng Australia International Investment Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 266 Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305; 339 ALR 635 Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity [2008] NSWSC 25 Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; 201 CLR 1 Viterra Malt Pty Ltd v Cargill Australia Ltd [2018] VSCA 118; 58 VR 333 |
Parties: | C Elvin ( Plaintiff) S Vuleta (First Defendant) E Senatore (Second Defendant) N Cussen (Third Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-Represented ( Plaintiff) V Huntington (First Defendant) J Larkings (Second and Third Defendant) |
| Solicitors Self-Represented ( Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First Defendant) Johnson Winter & Slattery (Second and Third Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 215 of 2022 |
McWILLIAM J:
1․The proceeding before the Court is listed for hearing of a claim for breach of statutory duty, unconscionable conduct, conspiracy and professional negligence in April 2024.
2․The plaintiff is the former director of a company that entered into voluntary administration on 15 December 2015. The first defendant, Mr Stipe Vuleta, is a solicitor at Chamberlains Law Firm (CLF) who provided advice to the administrators in relation to the administration. The…
Continue reading Elvin v Vuleta
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Elvin v Vuleta [2024] ACTSC 84
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the litigation privilege or the advice privilege applied to the documents in question, and if the defences provided by the first defendant warranted the plaintiff being required to provide better particulars. The court had to examine the evidence presented to determine the nature of the legal advice and whether it was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for some other purpose.
The court found that the documents in question were protected by legal professional privilege, but that the privilege did not extend to all the documents the first defendant claimed. The court ruled that some of the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus fell under the litigation privilege, while others were prepared for the purpose of giving legal advice and were protected by the advice privilege. The court also determined that the defences provided were sufficient and did not require the plaintiff to furnish better particulars. Consequently, the applications for discovery and particulars were dismissed, and the first defendant was ordered to provide the second and third defendants with copies of the documents over which privilege was still claimed.
The court ordered the first defendant to provide copies of the remaining privileged documents to the second and third defendants within seven days, and for the second and third defendants to confirm whether they objected to the discovery of any of those documents on the grounds of client legal privilege within the same timeframe. The court reserved the issue of costs for a later determination.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Within 7 days of the date of these orders being made, the first defendant is to provide to the second and third defendants a copy (electronic or otherwise) of the remaining documents over which privilege continues to be maintained.
(2) The second and third defendants are to confirm whether they maintain their objection to the discovery of any, or all, of the documents referred to in Order 1 on the grounds of client legal privilege within 7 days of their receipt.
(3) The applications filed by the plaintiff on 30 January 2024, 27 February 2024 and 1 March 2024 in relation to discovery and particulars are otherwise dismissed.
(4) Costs of the applications are reserved.
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.