Maria Saravinovska v Krste (Chris) Saravinovski; Chris Saravinovski v George Saravinovski (No 2)

Maria Saravinovska sued her former husband, Krste (Chris) Saravinovski, over the sale of their family home. In a related proceeding, Chris sued his brother, George Saravinovski, over the same matter. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Chris sought to introduce evidence of conversations with his solicitor, which he had previously sought to exclude on the basis of client legal privilege. The court had to determine whether Chris had waived his privilege by making the conversations or their content known to others. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the exclusion of the privileged evidence was necessary in the interests of justice, pursuant to the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), section 122(2).

The court examined the principles of client legal privilege, which is intended to protect confidential communications between a client and their legal advisor. It assessed whether Chris had waived his privilege by discussing the privileged information with third parties, including his former wife, and whether these communications were made in circumstances where privilege could be said to have been waived. The court also considered whether the exclusion of the privileged evidence was necessary to ensure a fair trial, as per the statutory discretion under section 122(2) of the Evidence Act. In exercising this discretion, the court balanced the need to protect the confidentiality of legal advice against the requirements of justice in the particular case.

The court found that Chris had indeed waived his privilege by disclosing the contents of his privileged conversations to his former wife. Given the nature of the waiver and the fact that the privileged information had already been made public, the court held that it was not necessary to exclude the evidence to protect the confidentiality of the legal advice. The court concluded that the evidence should be admitted, as it was relevant to the issues in dispute and the waiver of privilege had already occurred. Consequently, the court ordered that the privileged evidence be admitted in both proceedings, ensuring that the trial could proceed fairly and justly.

The final orders of the court mandated the admission of the privileged evidence in both the proceeding between Maria and Chris, and in the proceeding between Chris and George. The court’s decision ensured that the trial could proceed with all relevant evidence, while also recognising the importance of client legal privilege and the circumstances under which it may be waived. The outcome reflects a careful balance between protecting the confidentiality of legal advice and ensuring that justice is served in the context of the particular case.