Legal Research
Cases
Wilks v Qu (Subpoena Objection)

Wilks v Qu (Subpoena Objection)

Case [2022] VCC 1448

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Wilks v Qu (Subpoena Objection) [2022] VCC 1448
Case: [2022] VCC 1448
Decision Date: 6 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

Actions

Citations

Wilks v Qu (Subpoena Objection) [2022] VCC 1448

Most Recent Citation

Wilks v Qu (Ruling No 3) [2023] VCC 764

Cases Citing This Decision

Wilks v Qu (Ruling No 3) [2023] VCC 764
Citation 1

…liq) v Farrow Finance Corporation (in liq) [1995] 1 VR 464 VICT v CFMMEU (Ruling No 2) [2018] VSC 467 Wilks v Qu (Subpoena Objection ) [2022] VCC 1448…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 46
Citation 1 (Para 31)

…Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101 at [68] (Gyles J); Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303 at [31]. 66Alternatively the gist or conclusion of the legal advice has been communicated, which amounts to a waiver of that advice. The plaintiff re…
Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 6) [2012] FCA 650
Citation 2

…38Mr Lacy notes that the standard of proof will be the balance of probabilities and that ‘I am instructed that the University will use these findings to determine what rights it may have and/or what steps it should take in relation to the allegations (if any)’. 39The plaintiff submits that nothing i…
Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 70
Citation 3

…th reference to the performance of work covered by the lawyer’s retainer to give legal advice’.[5] [5] Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) (2012) 87 ACSR 229, 251, [71] (Bromberg J). 41Rather, the evidence ‘points to another purpose or purposes held by the client which suggests an alternative purpose in relation to…
Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37
Citation 4

…the substance of the evidence is disclosed with their consent.[9] [8] Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 112(2 ) ; Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2008) 234 CLR 275, [45] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Heydon and Kiefel JJ). [9] Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 112(3). 65The plaintiff submits that the substance of the legal advi…
AWB Ltd v Cole (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274
Citation 5

…purpose’ is one that predominates over other purposes; it is the prevailing or paramount purpose.[4] [4] AWB v Cole (2006) 232 ALR 743, [105]-[106] (Young J); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings [2005] FCA 1247, [30] (Kenny J). 23The University relies on the evidence of Grace Brunton-Makeham in her affi…
Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1247
Citation 6

…ose.[4] [4] AWB v Cole (2006) 232 ALR 743, [105]-[106] (Young J); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings [2005] FCA 1247, [30] (Kenny J). 23The University relies on the evidence of Grace Brunton-Makeham in her affidavit affirmed 2 September 2022. Ms Brunton-Makeham is a senior lawyer in the Legal and Ri…
Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service [2004] FCAFC 237
Citation 7

…s 112(3). 65The plaintiff submits that the substance of the legal advice has been deployed in this case for forensic or commercial purposes.[10] [10] Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101 at [68] (Gyles J); Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303 at…
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49
Citation 8

…CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543, [9] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ. 22A ‘dominant purpose’ is one that predominates over other purposes; it is the prevailing or paramount purpose.[4] [4] AWB v Cole (…
Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63
Citation 9

…cquire in actuality the knowledge that it is always deemed to possess and which lies initially in the minds of its agents’. [7] [7] Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674, 687 (Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ). 43The plaintiff submits that the dominant purpose can only be ascertained by an assessment of the purpose of Mr Bower…
Beazley v Steinhardt [1999] FCA 1255
Citation 10

…ality the knowledge that it is always deemed to possess and which lies initially in the minds of its agents’. [7] [7] Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674, 687 (Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ). 43The plaintiff submits that the dominant purpose can only be ascertained by an assessment of the purpose of Mr Bower in retaining…
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 1655
Citation 11

…advice to the University.[3] [3] Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s118; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49, [35] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543, [9] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron,…
Sharon Bowker, Annette Coombe and Stephen Zwarts v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World; Maritime Union of Australia, The Victorian Branch and Others [2015] FWC 7887
Citation 12

…ited: Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) Cases Cited: Perry v Powercor [2011] VSC 308 – Bowker & Anor v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World & Anor [2015] FWC 7887 Ruling: Objection upheld in part…
Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited (No 2) [2018] VSC 293
Citation 13

…td & Ors v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd & Ors (No 8) [2018] VSC 193, [42]; Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited (No 2) [2018] VSC 293, [22]-[27]. 21Nothing turns on this distinction. The applicable test is whether a document or communication was created for the dominant purpose of the University’s legal depart…
Cargill Aust Ltd & Ors v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd & Ors (No 8) [2018] VSC 193
Citation 14

…is governed by the applicable principles at common law.[2] [2] Cargill Aust Ltd & Ors v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd & Ors (No 8) [2018] VSC 193, [42]; Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited (No 2) [2018] VSC 293, [22]-[27]. 21Nothing turns on this distinction. The applicable test is whether a document or commun…
Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd [2011] VSC 308
Citation 15

…f lawyer providing legal advice to client – Waiver – Confidentiality Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) Cases Cited: Perry v Powercor [2011] VSC 308 – Bowker & Anor v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World & Anor [2015] FWC 7887 Ruling: Objection upheld in part…
Wilks v Qu (Ruling) [2022] VCC 620
Citation 16

…1The background to this matter is set out in some detail in my ruling in Wilks v Qu (Ruling) [2022] VCC 620. 2In that ruling I made orders that the serious harm element be determined prior to trial. In preparation for the hearing on the serious harm element, both parties have filed and served subpoenas on non-par…

AI Chat coming soon