Goldy and Goldy & Ors

In the matter of *Goldy and Goldy & Ors*, Dawe J considered a dispute concerning the production of documents and the award of costs. The father had issued a subpoena to the Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) seeking certain documents. The DPP objected to this request, asserting legal professional privilege and public interest immunity. Additionally, the court addressed costs thrown away due to an adjournment of the trial, which arose from the mother's former solicitor producing a file from previous unrelated proceedings to the father's solicitors without consent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the DPP's objection to the subpoena should be upheld, specifically concerning the applicability of legal professional privilege to communications with the DPP and its staff. The secondary issue involved determining responsibility for the costs incurred due to the trial adjournment and the appropriate basis for assessing those costs.

Dawe J reasoned that legal professional privilege can indeed extend to communications with the DPP and its personnel. The court found that the father had not established any grounds upon which this significant right of privilege should be overridden. Consequently, the DPP's objection to the production of the documents was upheld. Regarding the costs, the court determined that the mother's former solicitor's error in producing the unrelated file was the basis for the mother's request for an adjournment.

Accordingly, the Department of Public Prosecutions was released from its obligation to comply with the subpoena. Furthermore, the court ordered that the mother's former solicitor pay the husband's and the Independent Children's Lawyer's costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment. These costs were to be assessed on an indemnity or solicitor/client basis for the husband and on the Legal Aid Scale for the Independent Children's Lawyer, with the quantum to be agreed or assessed by a Registrar in default of agreement.