STRAHAN & STRAHAN

The case of *Strahan & Strahan* involved an application by the husband seeking the production of documents over which the wife had claimed legal professional privilege. The dispute centred on whether the wife's belief that her legal representative was a qualified lawyer was sufficient to establish privilege, and whether that individual was indeed acting in the role of a lawyer. Additionally, the husband alleged that certain correspondence between the wife's representatives and external bodies, such as the Australian Tax Office and the Australian Federal Police, was unlikely to have been created for the dominant purpose of legal proceedings. The court also considered whether the wife had waived privilege by providing documents to third parties.

The primary legal issues before the court were: (1) whether legal professional privilege could be established where the client held a bona fide belief, on reasonable grounds, that their representative was a qualified lawyer, even if that person was not in fact qualified; (2) whether specific documents were created for the dominant purpose of legal proceedings; and (3) whether the wife had impliedly waived privilege by disclosing documents to third parties, thereby negating any claim of common interest privilege.

Dawe J found that while the wife's legal representative, Mr. GL, may not have been demonstrably qualified to practice law in any jurisdiction, the wife had established a bona fide belief on reasonable grounds that he was a qualified legal practitioner providing her with legal advice. This belief was supported by her introduction to him by a qualified practitioner and the sighting of a letterhead suggesting he was a legal practitioner in the United States. Applying the principles from *Global Funds Management (NSW) v Rooney*, the court held that privilege can exist where a client bona fide believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is their solicitor, up until the point that belief is dispelled. However, the court also determined that some of the documents in question were unlikely to have been created for the dominant purpose of conducting legal proceedings and that the wife had impliedly waived privilege by providing certain documents to third parties, as such disclosures did not attract common interest privilege and it would be unfair to maintain privilege after partial disclosure.

Consequently, the court ordered the wife to produce specific documents for inspection by the husband's solicitors within 14 days, at the husband's cost. These documents included correspondence with the Australian Tax Office, the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, the Australian Federal Police, and various Italian consulates and officials, as well as South Australian Police and the Italian Ministry of Internal Affairs.