Thompson v Rosen

In the matter of Thompson v Rosen, the dispute was centred on the enforceability of subpoenas served on legal representatives of a party. The respondent, Rosen, sought an order to compel the production of documents held by Thompson's legal representatives. The issue before the court was whether legal professional privilege applied to the documents in question, and if so, whether it was appropriate to determine the claim without the party asserting the privilege being present.

The court considered the principle that legal professional privilege is an exception to the general rule that all relevant documents must be produced in response to a subpoena. The court noted that the privilege exists to protect the confidentiality of communications between a client and their legal advisor. The court further considered the issue of whether the absence of the party asserting the privilege was a barrier to determining the claim. The court held that the privilege applied to the documents in question, and that it was not appropriate to determine the claim without the party asserting the privilege being present.

Accordingly, the court quashed the orders that had been made in the absence of the party asserting the privilege. The court held that the subpoenas were not valid as they did not take into account the privilege that applied to the documents in question. The court also held that it was not appropriate to determine the claim without the party asserting the privilege being present, as the privilege was an important consideration in the determination of the claim.