RAYNEY -v- CC [2012] WASC 149
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 149 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1033/2012 | 26 APRIL 2012 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT | 8/05/12 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 2 Leave to appeal and appeal dismissed on ground 3 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RAYNEY -v- CC [2012] WASC 149 CORAM : COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT HEARD : 26 APRIL 2012 DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1033 of 2012 BETWEEN : LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY
- Appellant
AND
CC
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE J D WHITBREAD
File No : APP 1 of 2011
Catchwords:
Appeal - Legal professional privilege - Litigation privilege - Scope of privilege claimed - Turns on its own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 2
Leave to appeal and appeal dismissed on ground 3
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr A G Elliott
Respondent : Mr D E Leigh
Solicitors:
Appellant : Timpano Legal
Respondent : WA Police Legal Services
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Adams v Anthony Bryant and Co Pty Ltd (1986) 15 FCR 513
Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney [1985] HCA 60; (1985) 158 CLR 500
AW v Rayney [2010] WASCA 161
AWB Ltd v Cole [2006] FCA 571; (2006) 152 FCR 382
Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; (1983) 153 CLR 52
Carter v Managing Partner, Northmore Hale Davey & Leake [1995] HCA 33; (1995) 183 CLR 121
Continue reading Rayney v CC
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Rayney v CC [2012] WASC 149
- Case
- [2012] WASC 149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Rayney, and the respondent, CC, were parties in a legal dispute that ultimately reached the court. The primary focus of the case was whether certain communications between Rayney and his legal advisors were protected by legal professional privilege. The court had to determine whether these communications were indeed privileged and, if so, to what extent they were protected. The case was heard and decided by the court, which rendered its judgment on the matter.
The legal issues at hand revolved around the scope and application of legal professional privilege and litigation privilege. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the communications in question were made in the course of providing legal advice or for the dominant purpose of litigation. The appellant argued that the communications were protected, while the respondent contended that they were not entitled to privilege. The court was tasked with interpreting the applicable laws and determining the extent of the privilege claimed.
The court's reasoning was meticulous and thorough, focusing on the specific facts of the case. It examined the nature of the communications, the context in which they were made, and the purpose behind them. The court found that certain communications were indeed protected by legal professional privilege, but others did not meet the criteria for privilege. The court's decision hinged on a detailed analysis of the facts, and it concluded that the privilege did not extend to all the communications in question. The outcome was that the appeal was allowed on the first and second grounds, while leave to appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed on the third ground.
The legal issues at hand revolved around the scope and application of legal professional privilege and litigation privilege. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the communications in question were made in the course of providing legal advice or for the dominant purpose of litigation. The appellant argued that the communications were protected, while the respondent contended that they were not entitled to privilege. The court was tasked with interpreting the applicable laws and determining the extent of the privilege claimed.
The court's reasoning was meticulous and thorough, focusing on the specific facts of the case. It examined the nature of the communications, the context in which they were made, and the purpose behind them. The court found that certain communications were indeed protected by legal professional privilege, but others did not meet the criteria for privilege. The court's decision hinged on a detailed analysis of the facts, and it concluded that the privilege did not extend to all the communications in question. The outcome was that the appeal was allowed on the first and second grounds, while leave to appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed on the third ground.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 2
Leave to appeal and appeal dismissed on ground 3
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.