Morton v Bolinda Publishing Pty Limited
Case
•
[2017] FCA 187
•2 March 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Morton v Bolinda Publishing Pty Limited [2017] FCA 187
[2017] FCA 187
2 March 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Morton v Bolinda Publishing Pty Limited involved a dispute over the application of legal professional privilege in documents related to publishing agreements between Kate Morton and Bolinda Publishing Pty Limited. Morton sought to assert privilege over several documents exchanged between the parties, including communications with her former literary agent, Selwa Anthony. Bolinda challenged Morton's claim of privilege, arguing that it was not applicable due to various factors, including Morton's termination of her agency agreement with Anthony and the assertion of privilege in the context of a dispute over the withholding of payments.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Bolinda was entitled to claim legal professional privilege over the documents in question, whether a joint privilege or common interest privilege existed between Bolinda and Anthony, whether there had been a waiver of privilege by Bolinda, and whether Morton had waived the privilege by putting the contents of the privileged documents in issue. The court had to determine the applicability of legal professional privilege in light of the specific circumstances and context of the communications and documents in dispute.
In dismissing the interlocutory application, the court found that Bolinda was entitled to claim legal professional privilege for the documents in question, as the communications were made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court also held that a joint privilege or common interest privilege existed between Bolinda and Anthony, as they shared a common interest in resolving the dispute over the withholding of payments. However, the court found that there had been no waiver of privilege by Bolinda, as the communications were made in confidence and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court also ruled that Morton had not waived the privilege by putting the contents of the privileged documents in issue.
The court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered Morton to pay Bolinda's costs. Additionally, the court granted Morton leave to file written submissions regarding the costs incurred by Anthony, with Anthony then granted leave to respond.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Bolinda was entitled to claim legal professional privilege over the documents in question, whether a joint privilege or common interest privilege existed between Bolinda and Anthony, whether there had been a waiver of privilege by Bolinda, and whether Morton had waived the privilege by putting the contents of the privileged documents in issue. The court had to determine the applicability of legal professional privilege in light of the specific circumstances and context of the communications and documents in dispute.
In dismissing the interlocutory application, the court found that Bolinda was entitled to claim legal professional privilege for the documents in question, as the communications were made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court also held that a joint privilege or common interest privilege existed between Bolinda and Anthony, as they shared a common interest in resolving the dispute over the withholding of payments. However, the court found that there had been no waiver of privilege by Bolinda, as the communications were made in confidence and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court also ruled that Morton had not waived the privilege by putting the contents of the privileged documents in issue.
The court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered Morton to pay Bolinda's costs. Additionally, the court granted Morton leave to file written submissions regarding the costs incurred by Anthony, with Anthony then granted leave to respond.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Legal Privilege
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Interlocutory Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
MA v Qin [2025] VSC 326
Cases Citing This Decision
270
Pirrottina v Pirrottina
[2025] NSWCA 55
Marshall v Prescott
[2013] NSWCA 152
Marshall v Prescott
[2013] NSWCA 152
Cases Cited
20
Statutory Material Cited
1
AWB Ltd v Cole (No 5)
[2006] FCA 1234
AWB Ltd v Cole (No 5)
[2006] FCA 1234
Re Philip Morris Limited and Prime Minister
[2011] AATA 556