Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd v Griffin Energy Group Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [No 3]

Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd v Griffin Energy Group Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [No 3] involved a dispute regarding the subpoena of legal documents from Baker McKenzie, with an assertion of legal professional privilege by the Griffin defendants. The case focused on whether Mr McMaster, as a former administrator of Griffin Energy Group, could waive the joint legal professional privilege held by all relevant corporate defendants through his witness statement in the ongoing litigation. The court had to determine if Mr McMaster's actions constituted an implied waiver of privilege that could bind all joint privilege holders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr McMaster, by his witness statement, could unilaterally waive the joint legal professional privilege held by all corporate defendants in the Baker McKenzie documents. This issue required the court to examine established principles of legal professional privilege, joint interest privilege, and the conditions under which such privileges could be waived. The court needed to ascertain whether Mr McMaster's conduct, as detailed in his witness statement, could be considered an implied waiver that would affect all joint holders of the privilege.

The court considered the well-established principle that for a joint interest privilege to be waived, all holders of that privilege must concur in the waiver. This principle was cited from relevant authorities including Australand Corporation Qld Pty Ltd v Johnson and R v Financial Services Authority. The submissions from both parties, though extensive, did not reveal any fundamental disagreement on the principles of privilege or waiver. The court noted that the issue of waiver only became prominent towards the end of the hearing and granted an extension for further written submissions to clarify the positions of all parties. Ultimately, the court concluded that Mr McMaster's conduct, as outlined in his witness statement, could not constitute a binding waiver for all joint privilege holders, as all holders needed to concur in the waiver.

The court's decision affirmed that Mr McMaster's conduct, through his witness statement, did not amount to a binding waiver of the joint legal professional privilege held by all relevant corporate defendants. The court allowed the Griffin defendants' application to protect the privilege of the Baker McKenzie documents, ensuring that all parties' rights concerning legal professional privilege were upheld.