Moran v Moran [No 9]

The dispute in Moran v Moran [No 9] involved the parties' respective claims for costs in relation to property settlement proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the respondents had waived their entitlement to legal professional privilege in relation to certain documents. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was asked to review the decision of a single judge who had found that the respondents had waived their privilege.

The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents had waived their entitlement to legal professional privilege in relation to certain documents, which were said to have been used to refresh the recollection of one of the parties' legal representatives. The respondents argued that the privilege had not been waived, while the applicants contended that the privilege had been waived by the respondents' use of the documents in question. The court needed to determine the applicable legal principles in relation to waiver of legal professional privilege, and whether the circumstances of this case amounted to a waiver.

The court found that the privilege had not been waived in this case. The court held that the use of the documents to refresh recollection did not amount to a waiver of privilege, as there was no intention to disclose the contents of the documents to a third party. The court noted that the privilege holder must actively intend to waive the privilege for it to be considered waived, and found that such an intention was absent in this case. The court also considered the nature of the documents and the purpose for which they were used, and found that these factors did not support a finding of waiver. The court held that the respondents had not waived their entitlement to legal professional privilege.

As a result of this finding, the respondents were entitled to an order for costs against the applicants. The court made an order that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the Family Court, in the sum of $16,000. The applicants were also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal to the Full Court, in the sum of $6,000.