JERMYN -v- SPARGOS MINING NL [2001] WASCA 149
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 149 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:194/2000 | 20 MARCH 2001 | |
| Coram: | ANDERSON J WHEELER J | 20/03/01 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER GEOFFREY JERMYN SPARGOS MINING NL |
Catchwords: | Evidence Privileged communication Settlement negotiations Communication allegedly containing threat to engage in unlawful conduct |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290 Data Quest (Australia) Pty Ltd v Data Quest Inc, unreported; Fed Ct; 8 August 1996 Davies & Davies v Nyland & O'Neil (1975) 10 SASR 76 Field v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1957) 99 CLR 285 Freehill Hollingdale & Page v Bandwill Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 150 Grovit v Doctor [1997] 2 All ER 417 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Metal & Engineering Workers Union - Western Australia & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970184; 24 April 1997 Harrington v Lowe (1996) 190 CLR 311 Hughes v Gales (1995) 14 WAR 434 J A McBeath Nominees Pty Ltd v Jenkins Development Corporation Pty Ltd (1992) 2 Qd R 121 Kurtz & Co v Spence & Sons (1887) 57 LJ Ch 238 Lukies v Ripley (No 2) (1994) 35 NSWLR 283 Murchison Zinc Co Pty Ltd v Theiss Contractors Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 167 Quad Consulting Pty Ltd v David R Bleakley & Associates Pty Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 86 R v Jessen (1996) 89 A Crim R 335 Re Daintrey, Ex parte Hold [1893] 2 QB 116 Re Daniel Efrat Consulting Services Pty Ltd (1999) 162 ALR 429 Re Movitor Pty Ltd (1996) 136 ALR 643 State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems [1980] WAR 254 Tracey v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 555 Trades Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (1989) 88 ALR 69 Unilever plc v Proctor & Gamble Co [1999] 2 All ER 691 Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 276 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : JERMYN -v- SPARGOS MINING NL [2001] WASCA 149 CORAM : ANDERSON J
- WHEELER J
- Applicant (Third Defendant)
AND
SPARGOS MINING NL
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Evidence - Privileged communication - Settlement negotiations - Communication allegedly containing threat to engage in unlawful conduct
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant (Third Defendant) : Ms C J McLure QC
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr A F Mizen
Solicitors:
Applicant (Third Defendant) : Minter Ellison
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Alan Mizen
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Continue reading Jermyn v Spargos Mining NL
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Jermyn v Spargos Mining NL [2001] WASCA 149
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Jermyn v Spargos Mining NL, the Federal Court of Australia considered a dispute involving allegations of misconduct during settlement negotiations. The plaintiff, Jermyn, claimed that Spargos Mining engaged in unlawful conduct by making a threat during settlement negotiations, which was contained in a communication between the parties. The plaintiff sought to admit the content of this communication into evidence, arguing that it was relevant to the conduct of the negotiations and the defendants' behaviour. Spargos Mining opposed the admission of this communication, asserting that it was privileged and protected from disclosure due to the nature of the settlement negotiations.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the communication in question was privileged, thereby barring its admission as evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the privilege extended to communications made during settlement negotiations when one party allegedly threatened to engage in unlawful conduct. The court considered whether the privilege was absolute or if it could be overcome by the countervailing interest of justice, particularly in light of the alleged unlawful conduct.
The court found that the communication was not privileged and could be admitted into evidence. It held that the privilege that typically applies to settlement negotiations did not extend to communications that contained threats of unlawful conduct. The court reasoned that the countervailing interest of justice necessitated the admission of such evidence to ensure fair proceedings, particularly where there was an allegation of misconduct during negotiations. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the privilege should protect the communication, even if it contained a threat, and concluded that the evidence was relevant and admissible.
The court ultimately denied the defendants' application for leave to appeal the decision, thereby upholding the lower court's ruling that the communication could be admitted as evidence. This decision clarifies the extent of the privilege that applies to settlement negotiations and confirms that it does not extend to communications containing threats of unlawful conduct.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the communication in question was privileged, thereby barring its admission as evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the privilege extended to communications made during settlement negotiations when one party allegedly threatened to engage in unlawful conduct. The court considered whether the privilege was absolute or if it could be overcome by the countervailing interest of justice, particularly in light of the alleged unlawful conduct.
The court found that the communication was not privileged and could be admitted into evidence. It held that the privilege that typically applies to settlement negotiations did not extend to communications that contained threats of unlawful conduct. The court reasoned that the countervailing interest of justice necessitated the admission of such evidence to ensure fair proceedings, particularly where there was an allegation of misconduct during negotiations. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the privilege should protect the communication, even if it contained a threat, and concluded that the evidence was relevant and admissible.
The court ultimately denied the defendants' application for leave to appeal the decision, thereby upholding the lower court's ruling that the communication could be admitted as evidence. This decision clarifies the extent of the privilege that applies to settlement negotiations and confirms that it does not extend to communications containing threats of unlawful conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.