Suttram Pty Limited v Michelin Australia Pty Limited

Suttram Pty Limited applied for an order that Michelin Australia Pty Limited provide access to certain documents. The application was made in the Federal Court of Australia in the course of ongoing proceedings between the parties. Suttram sought access to documents that Michelin claimed were privileged. Suttram argued that it required access to the documents to understand them properly and to formulate its case. Michelin resisted the application on the basis that the documents were privileged and disclosure would undermine the purpose of legal professional privilege.

The court was required to determine whether the documents in question were privileged and, if so, whether access to them was reasonably necessary to enable Suttram to properly understand the documents and formulate its case. The court noted that the documents in question related to legal advice provided to Michelin. The court accepted that the documents were privileged. However, it found that the need for Suttram to understand the documents properly outweighed the need to maintain the privilege. The court found that access to the documents was reasonably necessary to enable Suttram to understand them properly and formulate its case.

Accordingly, the court made an order that Michelin provide access to the documents in question to Suttram. The order included protections for Michelin, such as a requirement that Suttram not disclose the contents of the documents to any third party without leave of the court. The order also included provisions for the secure handling of the documents by Suttram.