Legal Research
Cases
Lamers v Lamers

Lamers v Lamers

Case [2017] VSC 165 3 April 2017

Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Privilege

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2015 05124

ANDREW JOHN LAMERS	Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
v
JOHANNES ANTONIUS LAMERS	First Defendant
ORANA PARK PTY LTD (ACN 087 109 895) (both in its own capacity and as trustee of the John Lamers Family Trust)	Second Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 November 2016 and further submissions to 16 December 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lamers v Lamers and anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 165

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Client legal privilege – Privilege claim upheld after evidence filed – Subsequent withdrawal of claim of privilege due to earlier disclosure of document – Question of privilege re-opened - Disclosure waiver – Issue waiver – Derivative waiver – Certain documents held not to be privileged or to be produced by virtue of waiver - Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 118, 119, 122 and 126

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim	Mr P H Caillard	Oakleys Legal
For the Defendants/Plaintiff by Counterclaim	Mr D B Clough	M & K Lawyers Group Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Identification of issues and ruling on privilege....................................................................... 1
Developments after the oral hearing.......................................................................................... 4
Change of position by the defendants.............................................................................. 4
Should the question of privilege be re-opened?............................................................ 7
What documents are to be inspected............................................................................. 10
How privilege and waiver will be determined............................................................ 10

Summary of conclusions............................................................................................................ 11

Issues.................................................................................................................................................. 11

Issues in the proceeding............................................................................................................ 12
The Trust............................................................................................................................. 12
Trust Representations....................................................................................................... 14
The Orana Park Property................................................................................................. 14
Will Representations......................................................................................................... 16
Joint Endeavour................................................................................................................. 17
Reliance, detriment and relief sought............................................................................ 17

Issues in the application................................................................................................................. 19

Issues on privilege...................................................................................................................... 19
Issues on waiver.......................................................................................................................... 20
(a) Denials and assertions in the defence and notice of dispute (‘issue waiver’).... 20
(b) Supply to Andrew of certain documents (‘disclosure waiver’)............................ 21

Legal principles concerning client legal privilege..................................................................... 24

Privilege....................................................................................................................................... 24
Waiver........................................................................................................................................... 25
Points of disagreement in relation to waiver................................................................ 26
Discussion........................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion in relation to principles on waiver............................................................ 29

Application of principles to this case........................................................................................... 30

Privilege....................................................................................................................................... 30
Documents which do not relate to John’s personal assets.......................................... 31
Communications responsive to those no longer claimed to be confidential........... 33

Waiver........................................................................................................................................... 35
Disclosure waiver.............................................................................................................. 35
Issue waiver........................................................................................................................ 36
Derivative waiver.............................................................................................................. 39

Documents now to be produced.............................................................................................. 40
Further issues.............................................................................................................................. 43
Entitlement to documents as a director and shareholder of the second defendant 43
Destruction of documents relating to the purchase of the Orana Park Property.... 44

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 44

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This case concerns a dispute between the plaintiff (on occasion in these reasons referred to as ‘Andrew’) and his uncle, the first defendant (on occasion referred to as ‘John’), in relation to a farming property in Gippsland. Andrew alleges that John has resiled from representations made to him directly by John and by Mr John Barlow, John’s former solicitor, and also from his and John’s common intention about what would…

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 Lamers v Lamers

Details

AGLC: Lamers v Lamers [2017] VSC 165
Case: [2017] VSC 165
Decision Date: 3 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lamers v Lamers before the Supreme Court of Victoria involved a dispute between the parties regarding the disclosure of documents in the context of family law proceedings. The respondent, who was also the applicant in the family law matter, sought to rely on client legal privilege to withhold certain documents from disclosure. The appellant argued that the privilege had been waived by the respondent’s earlier disclosure of the documents, and subsequently, the respondent withdrew the claim of privilege. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the privilege had indeed been waived and, if so, which documents were affected by this waiver.

The court considered the principles of waiver, including derivative waiver, under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). It examined whether the respondent's earlier disclosure of the documents to a third party constituted a waiver of privilege. The court also assessed whether the respondent's subsequent withdrawal of the privilege claim re-opened the issue of privilege, thereby potentially reviving the privilege. The court further explored whether the withdrawal of the privilege claim constituted an issue waiver, preventing the respondent from later asserting privilege.

The Supreme Court found that the respondent's earlier disclosure of the documents did amount to a waiver of privilege, and that the subsequent withdrawal of the privilege claim did not re-open the issue of privilege. The court held that the withdrawal constituted an issue waiver, and the privilege was thus lost. As a result, certain documents were held not to be privileged and were required to be produced. The court determined that the principles of derivative waiver applied, extending the waiver to other related documents. The court's decision clarified the parameters of privilege waiver in the context of family law proceedings, ensuring that parties are aware of the implications of disclosing privileged documents.

Orders