Interchase Corp Limited (in Liq) v Colliers Jardine (Q) P/L

In the case of Interchase Corp Limited (in Liq) v Colliers Jardine (Q) P/L, the primary issue was the extent to which documents prepared in confidence and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice are privileged and protected from disclosure, particularly in the context of expert reports. The case involved a liquidation scenario where Interchase Corp Limited, in liquidation, sought to challenge the disclosure of certain documents, including expert reports, by Colliers Jardine (Q) P/L. The Court had to determine whether these documents, prepared in anticipation of litigation, were subject to legal professional privilege and, if not, under what circumstances they could be disclosed.

The legal issues central to the case involved the principles of legal professional privilege, particularly in relation to documents prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and the confidentiality of such communications. The court needed to ascertain whether the documents in question, especially expert reports, were privileged and if the instructions provided to the experts by the legal representatives of the parties could claim privilege. Additionally, the court examined whether the new Queensland rule under RSC O.35 r.5(2), which excludes expert reports from the scope of privilege, applied to the facts of the case.

The court's reasoning was grounded in established legal principles that each document claimed to be privileged must have been prepared in confidence and for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice. It was held that communications to and from experts, even if prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, lose their privilege under the new Queensland rule. This was because such communications fall within the exception provided by RSC O.35 r.5(2), which excludes expert reports from the scope of privilege. The court found that any document to which the expert report refers and which could influence the content of the report is not privileged and must be disclosed. This was in line with previous judicial decisions that established the principle that relevant facts upon which expert opinion is based must be disclosed.

The outcome of the case was that the documents in question, including expert reports and the documents referred to within those reports, were not privileged and had to be disclosed. The court concluded that under the new Queensland rule, the expert reports and any documents they refer to are disclosable and not protected by privilege, regardless of whether they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. This decision underscores the importance of the new rule in Queensland which alters the traditional protection of documents prepared for legal advice and litigation purposes.