Meteyard v Love

The case involved eight claimants, including an insurer, an insurance loss assessor, and a mining consulting company, who were served with examination summonses and orders for the production of documents concerning the affairs of Southland Coal. The receivers and managers of Southland Coal, as opponents, had obtained these summonses and orders. The claimants sought to have these set aside, arguing that the summonses and orders did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of section 596B of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), that many of the communications sought were likely to be subject to client legal privilege, and that the process was oppressive or an abuse of process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the examination summonses and orders for production met the threshold requirements of section 596B of the *Corporations Act*, specifically whether the claimants "may be able to give information about the examinable affairs of the corporation." A significant question also arose as to whether client legal privilege, as established under the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and (Cth), operated to exclude the operation of section 596B and provided an immunity from answering questions or producing documents. The court also considered whether the *Evidence Act* applied to examinations under the *Corporations Act* and whether the documents sought were privileged, particularly in light of how they were obtained.

The court determined that the jurisdictional basis for the issue of each summons, requiring that the proposed examinees have relevant information, had not been sufficiently made out. While the court acknowledged the importance of client legal privilege, it ultimately found that the orders for production made by the Deputy Registrar should be set aside. The court granted leave to appeal the primary judge's decision, set aside the orders for production and the order for costs made by the primary judge, and otherwise dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, indicating that the same result should have obtained at first instance.