Rich v Harrington

Ms Rich sought orders for the respondents to produce certain classes of documents, which they claimed were protected by client legal privilege. The respondents were represented by the legal firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques. The central issues before the court were whether the respondents had waived privilege in relation to certain documents, whether the Office of General Counsel of PwC (OGC) could maintain a claim for client legal privilege, and whether Mr Stuart Edwards had waived privilege in certain legal advice he provided. The case arose from complaints Ms Rich made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission about alleged unlawful discrimination by PwC, which were terminated without conciliation. Ms Rich then instituted proceedings against past and present partners of PwC.

The court had to determine whether the respondents had waived privilege over documents that recorded external legal advice given to PwC's management about imposing restrictions on Ms Rich. It also had to consider whether OGC could claim client legal privilege for advice provided by its members, and whether Mr Edwards had waived privilege in advice he gave to other PwC employees. The court examined the nature of the relationship between OGC and the respondents, the functioning of OGC, and the likely content of the litigation in prospect. The court concluded that the measures taken by OGC were sufficient to provide independent advice regarding Ms Rich’s allegations against other partners, despite the inherently sensitive and potentially reputation-damaging nature of those allegations. The court found that the independence of OGC was not compromised and therefore upheld the claim of client legal privilege in respect of the advice provided.