Mead v Mead

The appeal concerned proceedings for contempt brought by the appellant against the respondent, arising from orders relating to property dealings. The central issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the majority of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia had erred in law regarding legal professional privilege when considering an appeal from a decision of Cohen J.

The High Court was required to determine whether the majority of the Full Court had erroneously concluded that the law of legal professional privilege prevented the drawing of inferences about a party's knowledge, even if the probable source of that knowledge was a privileged communication. Furthermore, the High Court needed to consider whether the Full Court had failed to properly consider the first ground of appeal before it, which alleged that Cohen J had erred in finding as a fact that the respondent was aware of the terms of certain orders.

The High Court held that the rule relating to legal professional privilege does not preclude the drawing of inferences about a party's knowledge from surrounding events and circumstances, even if a privileged communication is the likely source of that knowledge. The majority of the Full Court had incorrectly applied this principle, thereby impeding Cohen J's ability to draw the inference he did. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Full Court, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Full Court for re-hearing and determination.