Legal Research
Cases
Sharpe v Grobbel

Sharpe v Grobbel

Case [2017] NSWSC 1065 15 August 2017

Discovery & Disclosure

Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Privilege

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 1065
Hearing dates: 10 August 2017
Date of orders: 15 August 2017
Decision date: 15 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Application to set aside subpoena and alternatively to excuse recipient from producing documents dismissed with costs

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – subpoenas – motion to set aside subpoena – where applicant directs subpoena to law firm – where law firm claims privilege on behalf of client – where no privilege as between parties with common interest in subject matter of communications – where reasonable basis for supposing that sought material will likely add to relevant evidence – held, motion dismissed.
Legislation Cited: (CTH) Corporations Act 2001, s 198F, s 237, s 247A
(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 33.4
Cases Cited: A v Z [2007] NSWSC 899; (2007) 212 FLR 255
Aerva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] WASC 10
Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey (2008) 182 A Crim R 536; [2008] NSWCCA 65
BBGP Managing General Partner Ltd v Babcock & Brown Global Partners [2011] Ch 296; [2011] 2 All ER 297
Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Limited v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98
Brand v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2001] NSWSC 425
CIA Barca de Panama SA v George Wimpey & Co. Limited [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep 598
Claremont Petroleum NL, Re (1990) 2 Qd R 31
Commercial Union Assurance Co PLC v Mander [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 640
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Czerwinski v Syrena Royal Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 125
Dennis & Sons Ltd v West Norfolk Farmers Manure & Chemical Cooperative Co Ltd [1943] Ch 220
Eastmark Holdings Pty Limited v Kabraji (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1463
Edman v Ross (1922) 22 SR(NSW) 351
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Webb (1996) 39 NSWLR 601
Fox v Gadsden (2003) 46 ACSR 713
Geffen v Goodman Estate [1991] 2 SCR 353
Re Geneva Finance Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 496; 7 ACSR 415
Hancock v Rinehart (Freehills subpoena) [2017] NSWSC 530
Hanks v Admiralty Resources NL (No 2) [2011] FCA 1464
Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Harrison (The "Sagheera") [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 160
ICAP Australia Pty Ltd v BGC Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 307
Kimber v Brookman Solicitors [2004] 2 FLR 221
Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v Canada (Attorney-General) 2002 SCC 61.
Morgan Grenfell, Ex parte [2003] 1 AC 563; [2002] UKHL 21
National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association v Waind and Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors [1999] PNLR 52
Oswal v Burrupo Fertilisers Pty Ltd (2013) 295 ALR 708
Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115
Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222; [1999] 1 All ER 517
R v Central Criminal Court; ex parte Francis & Francis [1989] AC 346
R v Derby Magistrates…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sharpe v Grobbel

Details

AGLC: Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 1065
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1065
Decision Date: 15 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharpe v Grobbel is a case before the court where the primary issue revolves around the admissibility of subpoenaed documents. The applicant, Sharpe, sought to set aside a subpoena served on a law firm, which claimed privilege on behalf of its client. The respondent, Grobbel, opposed the motion on the grounds that there was no privilege as between parties with a common interest in the subject matter of the communications. The court had to determine whether the law firm could claim privilege over the documents and whether the subpoena should be set aside.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the law firm could claim privilege over the subpoenaed documents on behalf of its client. The court had to consider whether there was a common interest between the parties involved and whether the privilege applied in such circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was a reasonable basis for believing that the sought material would likely add to the relevant evidence.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the subpoena. It found that there was no privilege as between parties with a common interest in the subject matter of the communications. The court also determined that there was a reasonable basis for supposing that the sought material would likely add to the relevant evidence. As a result, the motion was dismissed, and the subpoena remained in effect.

No final orders are explicitly stated in the text provided, but the dismissal of the motion to set aside the subpoena indicates that the documents in question are to be produced as part of the case proceedings.

Orders