Harrington v Rich

The case of Harrington v Rich involved the Partners, who were contesting an interlocutory judgment made by Branson J, regarding the disclosure of certain documents. The Partners sought leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment, arguing that the substantive proceedings had been resolved but that there were issues surrounding the costs of the proceedings and the uncertainty created by Branson J’s judgment regarding legal professional privilege. The court had to decide whether the Partners' application for leave to appeal should be granted, and if the interlocutory orders should be stayed.

The court considered the factors that suggested the interlocutory orders should be stayed, including the complete resolution of substantive proceedings and the lack of any remaining issues regarding costs. The court also considered the Partners’ argument that Branson J’s judgment created uncertainty regarding legal professional privilege, but found that her judgment was fact-specific and did not lay down broad general principles. The court compared the present case with the case of Attorney-General v Alinta, where the Attorney-General’s application for special leave was granted, but found the circumstances of the two cases to be different.

The court decided that the application for leave to appeal should be stayed permanently, and that Orders 1 and 4 made by Branson J should be permanently stayed. The court dismissed the cross-appeal filed by the Partners.