Vasil v National Australia Bank Ltd

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales heard an appeal concerning the application of privilege against self-incrimination in the context of an order for disclosure of assets. The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by National Australia Bank Ltd (NAB) against Vasil, seeking to enforce a judgment and obtain disclosure of assets. Vasil sought to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination to resist disclosure, arguing that such disclosure might expose him to criminal liability.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the privilege against self-incrimination, as codified in section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW), could be invoked to resist an order for disclosure of assets in aid of enforcing a civil judgment, particularly where the disclosure might reveal contraventions of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) or other statutes. The Court was required to consider the scope and limitations of this privilege in such circumstances and its interaction with the court's power to compel disclosure for the enforcement of judgments.

The Court reasoned that while section 128 of the *Evidence Act* preserves the privilege against self-incrimination, it does not operate as an absolute bar to disclosure orders. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Reid v Howard* (1995) 184 CLR 1, which affirmed that the privilege is not a licence to frustrate the administration of justice. The Court found that the potential for criminal liability arising from the disclosure of assets, in this instance, did not outweigh the Bank's legitimate interest in enforcing its judgment. The Court determined that the privilege, if applicable at all, was not sufficiently engaged to prevent the disclosure order being made.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside.