MEIBURN PTY LTD & ORS -v- MLC LTD [2000] WASC 138

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 138
Case No:	CIV:2368/1997	Heard:	17 APRIL 2000
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	9/06/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	MEIBURN PTY LTD FELICE ANDRIANI SARETTA ANDRIANI BRETON HOLDINGS PTY LTD SPINA SANTINI MICHELE SANTINI BROOKLYN NOMINEES PTY LTD RADOVAN MESTRIC MLC LTD
Catchwords:	Discovery of particular document Statements given by plaintiffs to ASC and police discoverable and not privileged
Legislation:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 (Cth), s 25 Corporations Law, s 1324, s 1065(1) Rules of the Supreme Court, O 26A
Case References:	Attorney General (NT) v Morris (1986) 161 CLR 475 Carboni & Anor v National Crime Authority & Ors (1994) 126 ALR 79 Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 124 ALR 493 ESSO Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970733; 12 December 1997 Sommerville & Ors v ASC & Ors (1995) 13 ACLC 467 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Myers Co Ltd [1979] 272 Bushtown Holdings Pty Ltd v Conlan [1999] WASC 123 Buttes Bas & Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1981] 1 QB 223 Taylor v Batten [1878] 4 QBD 85 Taylor v Commissioner for Railways [1974] Qd R 137 TPC v Ampol Petroleum (Victoria) Pty Ltd (1994) 126 ALR 111 Trade Practices Commission v Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 44 FLR 149

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MEIBURN PTY LTD & ORS -v- MLC LTD [2000] WASC 138 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 17 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 9 JUNE 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2368 of 1997 BETWEEN : MEIBURN PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

FELICE ANDRIANI

SARETTA ANDRIANI

Second Plaintiff

BRETON HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

SPINA SANTINI

Fourth Plaintiff

MICHELE SANTINI

Fifth Plaintiff

BROOKLYN NOMINEES PTY LTD

Sixth Plaintiff

RADOVAN MESTRIC

Seventh Plaintiff

AND

MLC LTD

Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Discovery of particular document - Statements given by plaintiffs to ASC and police discoverable and not privileged

Legislation:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 (Cth), s 25

Corporations Law, s 1324, s 1065(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court, O 26A

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Second Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Third Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Fourth Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Fifth Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Sixth Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Seventh Plaintiff : Mr T H Brickhill

Defendant : Mr M J Feutrill

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Second Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Third Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Fourth Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Fifth Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Sixth Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Seventh Plaintiff : Brickhill Banaszak

Defendant : Freehill Hollingdale…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MEIBURN Pty Ltd v MLC Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASC 138
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MEIBURN Pty Ltd v MLC Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a company, and the defendant, MLC Limited, regarding the discovery of specific documents. The plaintiff sought to obtain statements made by its directors to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the police, arguing that these documents were discoverable and not protected by privilege. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statements given by the plaintiffs to ASIC and the police were discoverable and if they were exempt from disclosure due to any form of privilege. The court had to consider the scope of the discovery process in civil litigation and the extent to which documents obtained in the context of regulatory or criminal investigations could be compelled. The plaintiff argued that the statements were relevant to the case and necessary for a fair trial, while the defendant contended that the documents were privileged and should not be disclosed.

The court found that the statements were indeed discoverable and were not protected by any privilege. In reaching this decision, the court considered the nature of the documents and the circumstances in which they were obtained. The court held that the statements were not protected by legal professional privilege or any other form of privilege, as they were not prepared by legal professionals for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Furthermore, the court ruled that the public interest in the fair administration of justice outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendants. Consequently, the application for the discovery of the documents was allowed.

The court's decision was that the application for the discovery of the particular documents was granted. The plaintiff was entitled to obtain the statements given by its directors to ASIC and the police, which were deemed discoverable and not privileged. This ruling ensures that the plaintiff has access to relevant information necessary for its case, while also balancing the interests of the parties and the public interest in the fair administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.