Snjezana Livun as executor of the estate of Jim Anthony Lovreta v Lovreta
[2025] WASC 355
•28 AUGUST 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: SNJEZANA LIVUN as executor of the estate of JIM ANTHONY LOVRETA -v- LOVRETA [2025] WASC 355
CORAM: TOTTLE J
HEARD: 7 MAY 2025
DELIVERED : 28 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S: CIV 2218 of 2022
BETWEEN: SNJEZANA LIVUN as executor of the estate of JIM ANTHONY LOVRETA
Plaintiff
AND
ANTHONY STEVE LOVRETA
First Defendant
LOVRETA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Defendant
LOVRETA ESTATE PTY LTD
Third Defendant
JULIE VICKI LOVRETA
Fourth Defendant
ANTHONY STEVE LOVRETA
LOVRETA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Plaintiff by counterclaim
SNJEZANA LIVUN as executor of the estate of JIM ANTHONY LOVRETA
SNJEZANA LIVUN
Defendant by counterclaim
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for directions in relation to documents produced in answer to a subpoena - Legal professional privilege claims - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA)
Result:
Application successful in part
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : PDC Robinson First Defendant : MG Pendlebury Second Defendant : MG Pendlebury Third Defendant : MG Pendlebury Fourth Defendant : MG Pendlebury Plaintiff by counterclaim : MG Pendlebury Defendant by counterclaim : PDC Robinson Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Williams + Hughes First Defendant : Rowe Bristol Lawyers Second Defendant : Rowe Bristol Lawyers Third Defendant : Rowe Bristol Lawyers Fourth Defendant : Rowe Bristol Lawyers Plaintiff by counterclaim : Rowe Bristol Lawyers Defendant by counterclaim : Williams + Hughes Case referred to in decision:
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 9] (2025) WASC 126
TOTTLE J:
1The defendants object to the inspection by the plaintiff of documents produced to the court by Beaumonts Accountants Pty Ltd in answer to a subpoena issued on 11 October 2024. The objection comes before the court by way of an application made by the defendants in accordance with O 36B r 8B of the Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA) for an order under O 36B r 8A prohibiting the plaintiff from inspecting documents listed in an 'Updated Objection Schedule'. The defendants contend the documents in the Updated Objection Schedule are the subject of legal professional privilege.
2The action is being case managed by Solomon J. The application was referred for determination by me in case it was necessary to inspect any of the documents over which privilege is claimed. I have inspected the 61 documents over which privilege was claimed at the hearing of the application. After the hearing the defendant withdrew its claim to privilege in relation to some documents.
3In broad terms the disputes between the parties arise out of the dissolution of several partnerships between the late Mr Jim Lovreta and his brother Mr Anthony (Tony) Lovreta. The plaintiff is the executrix of Mr Jim Lovreta's estate. The action was commenced on 21 November 2022. Among other matters the plaintiff alleges Mr Tony Lovreta made unauthorised withdrawals from partnership accounts and has failed to account for the partnerships' assets properly. Various claims arising out of the partnerships' affairs are made by Mr Tony Lovreta and his wife, Ms Julie Lovreta, by counterclaim. The factual background to the claims and counterclaims is complicated. For the purposes of this application, it is only necessary to mention one matter which is the that defendants allege Mr Ian Gibson (who appears to be a director of Beaumonts Accountants Pty Ltd) was the accountant for some of the partnerships in dispute for the period of 30 years preceding Mr Jim Lovreta's death. The defendants allege Mr Gibson made recommendations about financial matters and was present at relevant meetings.
4On 20 April 2023 proceedings (numbered CIV 1403 of 2023) were commenced by Byam Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim Lovreta Family Trust against Kotisan Pty Ltd as trustee for the Anthony Lovreta Family Trust. These proceedings arise out of the business affairs of the late Mr Jim Lovreta and Mr Tony Lovreta.
5The principles governing the making of claims for legal professional privilege have been stated many times. Most recently a comprehensive statement of the relevant principles supported by references to the leading authorities was provided by Hill J in Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 9].[1] I gratefully adopt her Honour's statement of the principles.
[1] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 9] (2025) WASC 126.
6In support of the claims for privilege the defendants relied on affidavits sworn by Mr Jeremy Chaila (one of their solicitors) on 27 March and 14 April 2025. Mr Chaila, along with Mr Adam Rowe of the defendants' solicitors, is involved in the conduct of the dispute on the defendants' behalf. He was the author of many of the communications over which privilege is claimed. The plaintiff relied on an affidavit sworn by Mr Daniel Tassone (one of her solicitors) on 3 April 2025. Mr Tassone attached to his affidavit 20 documents produced by Beaumonts Accountants Pty Ltd over which privilege is not claimed. The point of this exercise was to illustrate the generality of the descriptions given by the defendants to the documents over which privilege is claimed by demonstrating that non-privileged documents meet the description of the privileged documents.
7Both sides filed comprehensive written submissions. There was no dispute about the applicable principles. Principally the controversy centred on the adequacy of grounds on which privilege was claimed. The substance of the plaintiff's argument was the defendants' claims did not rise above assertion, relied on formulaic claims and lacked focus and specificity.
8There is some force in the plaintiff's argument. That said, the level of specificity in the articulation of a claim necessary to establish legal professional privilege depends on the context in which the claim is made and the nature of the claim, that is, whether the privilege claimed is advice privilege or litigation privilege. Although the applicable principles may be stated quite clearly, making claims in compliance with them can be difficult. Striking a balance between providing an adequate explanation of the basis for the claim while preserving the confidentiality of the communication and the nature and substance of any advice can be challenging.
9On inspection of the documents, with the limited exceptions identified in the table below, I formed the view the documents were the subject of legal professional privilege. The majority of the communications were part of a sequence of communications by which the defendants' solicitors sought evidence in the form of financial and accounting information from Beaumonts Accountants Pty Ltd (specifically from Mr Gibson) in relation to the plaintiff's claims and by which such information was provided to the defendants' solicitors.
10My rulings on the individual documents are set out in the attached schedule.
11I will hear the parties as to costs.
LPP OBJECTION SCHEDULE
| Doc No. | Description | Ruling | Reason |
| 1. | Email trail beginning with email from Anthony Lovreta to Adam Rowe dated 27 May 2022 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Anthony Lovreta dated 7 June 2022, regarding meeting in relation to the engagement of Rowe Bristol lawyers by Anthony Lovreta. | Claim not pressed. | No ruling required |
| 2. | Email from Lovreta Group to Ian Gibson dated 7 November 2022 forwarding email from Shari Lovreta to Jeremy Chaila dated 1 November 2022, regarding loan payment details required to provide responses to queries raised by Williams + Hughes. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication of instructions from defendants' representative to defendants' solicitors for the purposes of anticipated litigation onforwarded to Mr Gibson. Disclosure would reveal the instructions provided. |
| 3. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 28 November 2022 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 29 November 2022, regarding information required in respect of entities, trusts and partnerships of the | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence required to prepare defence in the proceeding. |
4. | Second copy of email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 28 November 2022 regarding information required in respect of entities, trusts and partnerships, being information required for the purposes of preparing a defence in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence required to prepare defence in the proceeding. |
| 5. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 28 November 2022 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 30 November 2022, regarding information required in respect of entities, trusts and partnerships information required for the purposes of preparing a defence in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence required to prepare defence in the proceeding. |
| 6. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 12 December 2022, regarding information required in respect of entities, trusts and partnerships, being | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence required to prepare defence in the proceeding. |
| 7. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 20 January 2023 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 20 January 2023, regarding Kotisan transfers of land. | Plaintiff no longer presses objection. | No ruling required. |
| 8. | Email trail beginning with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 11 April 2023 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 12 April 2023 at 9:17am, regarding meeting in relation to issues relevant to CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communications exchanged for the purposes of the litigation. |
| 9. | Email trail beginning with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 11 April 2023 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2023 at 5:18pm, regarding meeting in relation to issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | The reason in relation to document 8 is repeated. |
| 10. | Memorandum from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 19 April 2023, regarding agenda items for a meeting with Ian Gibson on 27 April 2023 relating to issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication prepared for the purposes of assisting in the process of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 11. | Email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila and Adam Rowe dated 28 April 2023, regarding Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd financial reports relating to issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication of information for the purposes of litigation. |
| 12. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila and Adam Rowe dated 28 April 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 28 April 2023, regarding Lovreta financial documents in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 13. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 28 April 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 1 May 2023, regarding Lovreta financial documents in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 14. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 1 May 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 2 May 2023, regarding Lovreta financial documents in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 15. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 8 May 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 8 May 2023, regarding meeting to discuss ledgers in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 16. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 17 May 2023, regarding information required in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 17. | Second copy of email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 17 May 2023, regarding information required in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 18. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 18 May 2023, regarding information required in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 19. | Email trail beginning with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 1 August 2023 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 2 August 2023, regarding meeting relating to issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 20. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 17 August 2023, regarding information required in relation to issues in connection with anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 21. | Email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 18 August 2023, regarding issues in connection with both anticipated and actual litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | Email attaches a copy of a non-privileged communication and the basis of the claim cannot be gleaned from the affidavit evidence. |
| 22. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 17 August 2023 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 18 August 2023, regarding information required in relation to issues in connection with anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 23. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 23 August 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 23 August 2023 regarding issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | The email communications concern the lodging of documents with ASIC in relation to the appointment of a director to Kotisan Pty Ltd. The relation these communications bear to the litigation is not apparent either from the description of the document or the affidavit evidence supporting the claim. |
| 24. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 23 August 2023 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 24 August 2023 regarding issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | The reason in relation to document 23 is repeated. |
| 25. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 18 August 2023 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 25 August 2023 concerning issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | It is not apparent from the email communications what relation they bear to the litigation and neither the description of the document nor the affidavit evidence provides any elucidation. |
| 26. | Email from Anthony Lovreta to Ian Gibson dated 6 October 2023 forwarding an email from Adam Rowe to Anthony Lovreta dated 24 August 2023 in connection with anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | The email forwards a privileged communication from the defendants' solicitor to the defendants containing legal advice. Disclosure would disclose legal advice. |
| 27. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 1 December 2023 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson and Eunice dated 1 December 2023, regarding financial reports in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 28. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 19 February 2024, regarding information required in connection with CIV 1403 of 2023. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 29. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 21 February 2024 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 21 February 2024, regarding financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 30. | Second copy of email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 21 February 2024 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 21 February 2024, regarding financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 31. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 6 March 2024, regarding information relating to financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 32. | Second copy of email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 6 March 2024, regarding information relating to financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 33. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 10 April 2024 attaching letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 10 April 2024, regarding documents and information which had been requested | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 34. | Letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 10 April 2024, regarding documents and information which had been requested from Ian Gibson in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 35. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson attaching letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024, regarding documents and information which had been requested from Ian Gibson in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 36. | Letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024 concerning confidential matters in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 37. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 23 April 2024 concerning confidential matters in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 38. | Second copy of email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 23 April 2024 concerning confidential matters in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 39. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 10 April 2024 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 29 April 2024 concerning confidential matters in connection with actual and anticiQated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 40. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 29 May 2024 concerning confidential matters in connection with actual and anticiQated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 41. | Email trail beginning with email from Shari Lovreta to Adam Rowe and Jeremy Chaila dated 11 June 2024 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 11 June 2024, regarding meeting to discuss issues relevant to actual litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communications between defendant and defendants' solicitor created to organise a meeting specifically for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. |
| 42. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Anthony Lovreta dated 30 June 2023, regarding costs incurred to date being part of email trail which concludes with email from Ian Gibson to Shari Lovreta dated 4 June 2024 regarding costs incurred to date in relation to actual litigation. | Plaintiffs no longer press objection. | No ruling required. |
| 43. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 5 July 2024, regarding 6 - 8 Station Street and mail relating to Kotisan Pty Ltd and Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd, in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld in part. | The claim for legal professional privilege is upheld in relation to paragraphs 1 to 8 inclusive on the basis of litigation privilege and advice privilege. Paragraphs 9 to 14 are not privileged. |
| 44. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 12 April 2024 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 31 July 2024 in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 45. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 8 August 2024 regarding evidentiary matters in connection with CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 46. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 14 August 2024, in relation to section 243 notices issued in connection with Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd and Kotisan Pty Ltd. | Plaintiffs no longer press objection. | No ruling required. |
| 47. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 22 August 2024, in relation to a teleconference in connection with issues in contention in ongoing proceedings. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 48. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson and another dated 23 August 2024, in relation to a teleconference in connection with issues in contention in ongoing proceedings. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 49. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 23 August 2024 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 28 August 2024, in relation to correspondence with Cooper Partners, regarding matters relevant to actual litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 50. | Email trail beginning with email from Adam Rowe to Ian Gibson dated 29 August 2024 and concluding with email from Adam Rowe to Lin at Beaumonts Accountants dated 10 September 2024, regarding matters relevant to actual litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 51. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 23 August 2024 and concluding with email on behalf of Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 10 September 2024, regarding previous correspondence sent to Ian Gibson, concerning matters in connection with actual and anticipated litigation. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. |
| 52. | Letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Beaumonts Accountants dated 13 September 2024, regarding information and documentation required for audits in connection with section 293 notices. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | Communication relates to requirements of the auditors of Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd and Kotisan Pty Ltd. I am not satisfied that the communication was created for the dominant purpose of the litigation. Note: In any event privilege claim waived on 8 August 2025. |
| 53. | Email trail beginning with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 23 August 2024 and concluding with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson and Lin dated 16 September 2024, following up information required in relation to section 293 notices. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to litigation. Note: In any event privilege claim waived on 8 August 2025. |
| 54. | Email from Beaumonts Accountants to Adam Rowe dated 25 September 2024, regarding information and documentation required for audits pursuant to section 293 notices. | Claim for legal professional privilege not upheld. | Communication relates to the audits of Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd and Kotisan Pty Ltd. I am not satisfied that the communication was created for the dominant purpose of the litigation. |
55. | Second copy of email from Beaumonts Accountants to Adam Rowe dated 25 September 2024, regarding information and documentation required for audits pursuant to section 293 notices. | Claim for legal professional privilege not upheld. | Communication relates to the audits of Lovreta Holdings Pty Ltd and Kotisan Pty Ltd. I am not satisfied that the communication was created for the dominant purpose of the litigation. |
| 56. | Email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 15 October 2024 concerning subpoena of plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege rejected. | The purpose of the communication is to emphasise documents must only be produced to the court and not to Williams + Hughes. The communication is not a confidential communication. |
| 57. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 22 November 2024 enclosing letter and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Jeremy Chaila dated 29 November 2024 concerning financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between defendants' solicitor and accountant forming part of the sequence of correspondence commenced by document 58. |
| 58. | Letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 22 November 2024 regarding information in financial statements in connection with issues in contention in CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant that records prior confidential communications between the solicitor and accountant concerning evidence in litigation. Disclosure of the document would disclose the nature and subject matter of the prior communications. |
| 59. | Letter from Rowe Bristol Lawyers to Ian Gibson dated 6 December 2024 regarding documents and information which had been requested from Ian Gibson in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022 | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant that records prior confidential communications between the solicitor and accountant concerning evidence in litigation. Disclosure of the document would disclose the nature and subject matter of the prior communications. |
| 60. | Email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 6 December 2024 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 16 December 2024 regarding information and documentation requested from Ian Gibson in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022 | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant forming part of the sequence of communications comprising documents 57, 58 and 59. |
| 61. | Second copy of email trail beginning with email from Jeremy Chaila to Ian Gibson dated 6 December 2024 and concluding with email from Ian Gibson to Adam Rowe dated 16 December 2024 regarding information and documentation requested from Ian Gibson in relation to CIV 2218 of 2022. | Claim for legal professional privilege upheld. | Confidential communication between the defendants' solicitor and accountant forming part of the sequence of communications comprising documents 57, 58 and 59. |
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
CD
Associate to the Honourable Justice Tottle
28 AUGUST 2025
0
0
1