Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1998] QSC 183
•11 September 1998
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village Nine Network Restaurants and Bars Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 183
[1998] QSC 183
11 September 1998
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd sued Village Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd and others for breach of an agreement for lease. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to proceed expeditiously in planning, obtaining necessary approvals, and effecting alterations in fitting out the premises. The defendants raised three issues for determination in their applications. Firstly, whether the plaintiff should be required to deliver a surrejoinder. Secondly, whether documents in respect of a mediation between the plaintiff and Concrete Constructions (Group) Limited are privileged. Lastly, whether certain documents are the subject of legal professional privilege. The court found that the plaintiff should not be required to deliver a surrejoinder, as it would not serve any useful purpose. The court also found that the objection on the basis of without prejudice privilege was well taken, and the summons was dismissed. The documents in question were limited to admissions which were truly concerned with negotiation and settlement. The court found that the privilege under consideration here was limited to admissions which are truly concerned with negotiation and settlement, and it was satisfied that the documents in question were properly the subject of such a privilege.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Abuse of Process
-
Legal Privilege
-
Without Prejudice Privilege
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Nuske v Boyde Waldemar Baker
[2013] SADC 73
NAK Australia Pty Ltd v Starkey Consulting Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWSC 1136
King v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
[2011] FCA 95