Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd v Tactical Project Management Pty Ltd

Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Tactical Project Management Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought, among other things, damages for legal costs it incurred in relation to separate proceedings brought by Built Qld Pty Ltd. The plaintiff's expert report, which was to assess the reasonableness of the plaintiff's legal costs, relied on unredacted copies of the plaintiff's solicitors' invoices. The plaintiff provided redacted copies of these invoices to the defendant and third party, citing client legal privilege as the basis for redactions. The defendant and third party applied for further and better disclosure, arguing that the plaintiff had waived its privilege by providing the redacted invoices to the expert and by raising the issue of the amount and reasonableness of its legal costs in the proceeding.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had waived client legal privilege by providing redacted copies of the invoices to the expert. It was also required to determine whether the plaintiff had waived privilege in the documents referred to in the invoices, and whether the plaintiff had conducted proportionate and reasonable searches for the purposes of disclosure. The court found that the plaintiff had waived privilege in the redacted parts of the invoices by providing them to the expert. The court also found that the plaintiff had waived privilege in the documents referred to in the invoices by raising the issue of the amount and reasonableness of its legal costs in the proceeding. However, the court found that the plaintiff had undertaken proportionate and reasonable searches for the purposes of disclosure.

The court made orders, substantially in the terms proposed by the defendant and third party, for further and better disclosure. The orders were subject to amendment to reflect the court's reasons and further submissions from the parties in relation to some aspects of the order, including as to costs. The court found that the plaintiff had waived privilege in the redacted parts of the invoices by providing them to the expert, and that the plaintiff had waived privilege in the documents referred to in the invoices by raising the issue of the amount and reasonableness of its legal costs in the proceeding. However, the court found that the plaintiff had undertaken proportionate and reasonable searches for the purposes of disclosure. The orders for further and better disclosure were made, subject to amendment and further submissions from the parties.