FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tsapatolis v Fuji Xerox Australia Ltd [2015] FCA 514
Citation: Tsapatolis v Fuji Xerox Australia Ltd [2015] FCA 514 Parties: ELENA TSAPATOLIS v FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA LTD T/AS FUJI XEROX File number: VID 420 of 2014 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 27 May 2015 Catchwords: PRIVILEGE – client legal privilege – whether statement gave rise to a waiver of privilege
COSTS – costs sought under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether the making of the application was an unreasonable act
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 122(3)(a)
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 122(3)(a)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 570(1), 570(2)(b)Cases cited: Ampolex Limited v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 28 – cited
Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101 – cited
Lactalis Jindi Pty Ltd v Jindi Cheese Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 475 – distinguished
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 – cited
Saxena v PPF Asset Management Limited [2011] FCA 39 – cited
Secretary, Department of Justice v Osland (2007) 95 ALD 380 – citedDate of hearing: Heard on the papers Place: Melbourne Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 17 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms F I O’Brien QC Solicitor for the Applicant: Max Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Mr N Harrington Solicitor for the Respondent: K&L Gates
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
VID 420 of 2014
BETWEEN: ELENA TSAPATOLIS
ApplicantAND: FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA LTD T/AS FUJI XEROX
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MAY 2015
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applications be refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
VID 420 of 2014
BETWEEN: ELENA TSAPATOLIS
ApplicantAND: FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA LTD T/AS FUJI XEROX
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
27 MAY 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The hearing of this proceeding is pending. The applicant has sought various remedies arising from the termination of her employment by the respondent (“Fuji”).
By interlocutory application the applicant has sought the production of legal advice given to Fuji and leave to deploy that advice at trial. The application has been made on the basis that Fuji has waived client legal privilege which would otherwise have protected the advice from production.
Fuji denies that any waiver has occurred.
The parties agreed that the applications should be determined by the Court on the basis of written submissions filed by them.
The background to the making of the applications may shortly be explained. In separate proceedings the applicant made a claim for compensation for workplace injuries under the Victorian WorkCover scheme. The applicant made a statement in support of her claim which led to further statements being taken from some other Fuji employees who had had dealings with the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tsapatolis v Fuji Xerox Australia Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCA 514
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the statement made by Mr Tsapatolis waived the client legal privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and their legal advisor. The court had to consider the nature and content of the statement, whether it was made in a context that indicated a waiver of privilege, and whether there was any explicit or implicit intention to waive privilege. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the defendant's application for the waiver of privilege was an unreasonable act under section 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which would entitle the plaintiff to seek costs.
In its reasoning, the court found that the statement made by Mr Tsapatolis did not constitute a waiver of the client legal privilege. The court considered the content and context of the statement and concluded that there was no explicit or implicit intention to waive privilege. The court also determined that the defendant's application for the waiver of privilege was not an unreasonable act, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek costs under section 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Consequently, the court refused both applications.
The final orders of the court were that the applications be refused. This decision ensures that the client legal privilege remains protected and reinforces the importance of confidentiality in the legal advice context. The refusal of the applications also highlights the court's stance on the unreasonableness of actions taken by parties in the pursuit of their respective claims.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applications be refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.