Jefferson-Taite v Lewis - [2016] ACTCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Jefferson-Taite v Lewis
Citation:	[2016] ACTCA 19
Hearing Date:	11 May 2016
DecisionDate:	17 June 2016
Before:	Penfold, Burns and Jagot JJ
Decision:	1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The order of the Court below dated 26 February 2016 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the application in proceedings dated 3 April 2014 be dismissed. 3. The respondent to the appeal (the plaintiff in the Court below) pay the appellants’ (the defendants’ in the Court below) costs of the appeal and of the application in the Court below, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Appeal from interlocutory judgment – client legal privilege – express abrogation of client legal privilege prior to commencement of court proceedings by s 109(2) of Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) – whether pt 4.3 of Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) operates following commencement of court proceedings – appeal allowed.
Legislation Cited:	1 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 68, 75; ch 5 2 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 601, 609, 673; pt 2.8 3 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 118, 128, 130; pt 3.10 4 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), ss 6, 6(2), 16, 126, 139, 139(1), 140, 141, 142, 171(1), 171(3) 5 Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), ss 5A(e), 76, 77, 84, 84(1), 97, 97(2), 101, 102, 102(b), 104, 105, 105(2)(a), 105(2)(b), 109, 109(2), 112, 113, 113(2), 114, 115, 115(2), 136(1), 137, 146, 147, 148, 149; pts 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9; ch 4 6 Supreme Court Rules 1937 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Best v Bardsley and Insurance Australia Ltd (2013) 278 FLR 134 Cleary v Rinaudo (2013) 8 ACTLR 71 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280; [1982] 2 WLR 338 Lewis v Jefferson-Taite [2016] ACTSC 29
Parties:	Benjamin Jefferson-Taite (First Appellant) Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance ACN 000 016 722 (Second Appellant) Edward Lewis (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Rewell SC (Appellants) Mr R Crowe SC with Mr D Crowe (Respondent)
Solicitors Sparke Helmore (Appellants) Maliganis Edwards (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 8 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Mossop AsJ Date of Decision: 26 February 2016 Case Title: Lewis v Jefferson-Taite Citation: [2016] ACTSC 29

PENFOLD J:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Burns and Jagot JJ. I agree with their conclusions, with the reasons for those conclusions, and with the orders they propose. I would add to their Honours’ reasons some further comments about interpreting the Road Transport(Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) (the TPI Act).

The primary judge made the following comments as one of his reasons for concluding that s 105 of the TPI Act continued to operate after court proceedings had been commenced (at [14]):

The structure of the Act and Ch 4 as a whole: The structure…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jefferson-Taite v Lewis

Details

AGLC: Jefferson-Taite v Lewis [2016] ACTCA 19
Case: [2016] ACTCA 19
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jefferson-Taite v Lewis*, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal from an interlocutory judgment concerning client legal privilege. The dispute arose from the application of section 109(2) of the *Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008* (ACT), which the appellants argued expressly abrogated client legal privilege prior to the commencement of court proceedings. The central question was whether Part 4.3 of the Act continued to operate following the commencement of court proceedings.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the interlocutory judgment below correctly interpreted the scope and operation of section 109(2) of the *Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008* (ACT) and, by extension, whether client legal privilege was abrogated in the circumstances of the case. The Court was required to determine the extent to which the statutory provisions applied to the disclosure of information once court proceedings had been initiated.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the interlocutory judgment had erred in its interpretation of the Act. The reasoning focused on the statutory language and its intended application. The Court set aside the order of the Court below and dismissed the application that had been brought in that Court. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and of the application in the Court below.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The order of the Court below dated 26 February 2016 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the application in proceedings dated 3 April 2014 be dismissed.

3. The respondent to the appeal (the plaintiff in the Court below) pay the appellants’ (the defendants’ in the Court below) costs of the appeal and of the application in the Court below, as agreed or assessed.

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.