Turner v Stewart Alan Levitt t/as Levitt Robinson Solicitors
Case
•
[2015] NSWDC 137
•23 July 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Turner v Stewart Alan Levitt t/as Levitt Robinson Solicitors [2015] NSWDC 137
[2015] NSWDC 137
23 July 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Turner v Stewart Alan Levitt t/as Levitt Robinson Solicitors involved the plaintiff, Mr Turner, who sought to transfer a proceeding from the Local Court to the Supreme Court, claiming legal professional privilege. The defendant, Alan Levitt trading as Levitt Robinson Solicitors, opposed the transfer, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for privilege and that the application was frivolous. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's application for transfer was frivolous or vexatious, and if the plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of establishing legal professional privilege over the documents in question. The court also had to consider the appropriate costs orders in relation to the transfer application.
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a reasonable prospect of proving privilege over the documents in question. It determined that the application for transfer was frivolous and vexatious, as the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of privilege. The court further found that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the transfer application was unreasonable and without merit. As a result, the court dismissed the application for transfer and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis.
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's application for transfer was frivolous or vexatious, and if the plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of establishing legal professional privilege over the documents in question. The court also had to consider the appropriate costs orders in relation to the transfer application.
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a reasonable prospect of proving privilege over the documents in question. It determined that the application for transfer was frivolous and vexatious, as the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of privilege. The court further found that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the transfer application was unreasonable and without merit. As a result, the court dismissed the application for transfer and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Advocate’s Immunity
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0