Pitt and Pitt (No 3)

In *Pitt and Pitt (No 3)*, Justice Rose of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena. The subpoena was issued to G Limited, a third party, by the Husband and Wife in their family law proceedings. The core of the dispute revolved around whether certain email communications between G Limited and its solicitors, DibbsBarker, were protected by legal professional privilege.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether the email communications dated 22 June 2009 and 30 June 2009 between DibbsBarker solicitors and G Limited were subject to legal professional privilege, thereby exempting them from production under the subpoena. This required an assessment of whether the communications were made for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

Justice Rose found that the email communications were indeed subject to legal professional privilege. The Court reasoned that the communications were made in the context of seeking and providing legal advice, and therefore were protected from disclosure. Consequently, the Court ordered that the documents were privileged and could not be inspected by the Husband or Wife or their legal representatives. The subpoena was to be released in respect of these documents, and they were to be returned to G Limited. The Husband was ordered to pay the costs of G Limited in relation to the privilege claim.