Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Case
•
[1999] HCA 67
•21 December 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67
[1999] HCA 67
21 December 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the test for legal professional privilege. The dispute centred on whether the privilege should be determined by the "dominant purpose" or the "sole purpose" for which a communication was made.
The Court was required to determine the correct test for establishing legal professional privilege in Australia. Specifically, it had to decide whether the common law test, as previously applied, required the communication to be made for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice, or if a dominant purpose was sufficient. The Court also considered the influence of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) on the development of the common law in this area, and whether its non-enactment in all Australian jurisdictions had any bearing on the application of past High Court authority.
A majority of the High Court held that the "dominant purpose" test was the correct common law standard for claiming legal professional privilege. The Court reasoned that this test struck a more just balance between competing policies, effectively ruling out claims where legal advice was not the primary reason for the communication, and aligning Australian common law with that of other common law jurisdictions. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and answering the question of law in favour of the dominant purpose test.
The Court was required to determine the correct test for establishing legal professional privilege in Australia. Specifically, it had to decide whether the common law test, as previously applied, required the communication to be made for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice, or if a dominant purpose was sufficient. The Court also considered the influence of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) on the development of the common law in this area, and whether its non-enactment in all Australian jurisdictions had any bearing on the application of past High Court authority.
A majority of the High Court held that the "dominant purpose" test was the correct common law standard for claiming legal professional privilege. The Court reasoned that this test struck a more just balance between competing policies, effectively ruling out claims where legal advice was not the primary reason for the communication, and aligning Australian common law with that of other common law jurisdictions. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and answering the question of law in favour of the dominant purpose test.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Evidence
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Privilege
-
Discovery
-
Appeal
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Pisano and Anor - v - Owners Corporation No.2 PS 506960X [2013] VCC 479
Cases Citing This Decision
1,511
Bird v DP (a pseudonym)
[2024] HCA 41
Bird v DP (a pseudonym)
[2024] HCA 41
Cases Cited
50
Statutory Material Cited
1
Grant v Downs
[1976] HCA 63
Mann v Carnell
[1999] HCA 66
Grant v Downs
[1976] HCA 63
Cited Sections