Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 2)

The case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 2) involved an application for discovery of documents by the Applicant, Ms Taylor, a clothing designer, against the Respondents, which included Ms Hudson, a recording artist, and several United States companies associated with her interests. The dispute centred on the production of documents from the period of 8 May to 21 July 2009, relating to the registration of Ms Taylor's trade mark KATIE PERRY. The legal issues before the Court were whether the Respondents had waived legal advice privilege, litigation privilege, and/or trade mark attorney advice privilege over the documents in question. The Court had to determine whether the Respondents had waived any privilege by express or implied means and, if not, whether the documents were indeed privileged.

The Court found that the Respondents had established the existence of privilege over the documents in dispute, with the exception of those documents over which a waiver had been conceded. The Court examined the nature of the relationship between Ms Hudson and her legal and trade mark advisers, concluding that Ms Hudson's agent, Mr Jensen, acted on her behalf in liaising with various service providers, including legal professionals. This relationship was sufficient to establish the requisite lawyer/client relationship necessary for privilege to apply. The Court also found that there was no evidence of waiver by the Respondents, either express or implied. Therefore, the documents were privileged by reason of advice or litigation privilege and/or trade mark attorney advice privilege.

The Court dismissed the Applicant's Interlocutory Application for discovery of the documents, except for those in respect of which privilege had been waived. The Court also ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondents' costs of the Interlocutory Application, with an opportunity for the parties to apply for a different costs order. The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented, the parties' submissions, and the documents in dispute, as outlined in the Schedule to the Court's reasons.