William Buck (WA) Pty Ltd v Faulkner [No 4]

[2013] WASC 63

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   WILLIAM BUCK (WA) PTY LTD -v- FAULKNER [No 4] [2013] WASC 63

CORAM:   LE MIERE J

HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED          :   5 MARCH 2013

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2995 of 2011

BETWEEN:   WILLIAM BUCK (WA) PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

WILLIAM BUCK HOLDINGS (WA) PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff

AND

CRAIG PETER FAULKNER
First Defendant

LEDGER FAULKNER PTY LTD
Second Defendant

CSF CORPORATE PTY LTD
Third Defendant

(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)

CRAIG PETER FAULKNER
Plaintiff

AND

WILLIAM BUCK (WA) PTY LTD
First Defendant

WILLIAM BUCK HOLDINGS (WA) PTY LTD
Second Defendant

MARK PETER COLLINS
Third Defendant

STEPHEN KENNETH BREIHL
Fourth Defendant

CHRISTOPHER JOHN BROWN
Fifth Defendant

FRANK DEL BORRELLO
Sixth Defendant

DAMON ALLAN HARRIS
Seventh Defendant

ROBIN BOYD JUDD
Eighth Defendant

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)
 

FILE NO/S              :COR 174 of 2011

MATTER                :WILLIAM BUCK HOLDINGS (WA) PTY LTD

BETWEEN              :CSF CORPORATE PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

WILLIAM BUCK HOLDINGS (WA) PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Legal professional privilege - Inspection of documents

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Documents privileged

Category:    B

Representation:

CIV 2995 of 2011

Original Action

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     No appearance

Second Plaintiff            :     No appearance

First Defendant             :     No appearance

Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Third Defendant           :     No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Solomon Brothers

Second Plaintiff            :     Solomon Brothers

First Defendant             :     Bennett & Co

Second Defendant         :     Bennett & Co

Third Defendant           :     Bennett & Co

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     No appearance

First Defendant             :     No appearance

Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Third Defendant           :     No appearance

Fourth Defendant          :     No appearance

Fifth Defendant            :     No appearance

Sixth Defendant            :     No appearance

Seventh Defendant        :     No appearance

Eighth Defendant          :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Bennett & Co

First Defendant             :     Solomon Brothers

Second Defendant         :     Solomon Brothers

Third Defendant           :     Solomon Brothers

Fourth Defendant          :     Solomon Brothers

Fifth Defendant            :     Solomon Brothers

Sixth Defendant            :     Solomon Brothers

Seventh Defendant        :     Solomon Brothers

Eighth Defendant          :     Solomon Brothers

COR 174 of 2011

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     No appearance

Defendant:     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Bennett & Co

Defendant:     Solomon Brothers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

LE MIERE J: 

How this determination arises

1. The defendants in CIV 2995 of 2011 and the plaintiff in COR 174 of 2011 (the Faulkner parties) seek inspection of specified documents over which the plaintiffs in CIV 2995 of 2011 and defendant in COR 174 of 2011 (William Buck parties) assert a claim for legal professional privilege.  Justice Kenneth Martin is determining that application.  K Martin J determined that the Court should inspect the documents for the purpose of determining the application.  The Faulkner parties requested that K Martin J refer inspection of the documents to another judicial officer.  The William Buck parties consented to that course of action and forwarded the documents to me.  At the request of K Martin J I have inspected the documents for the purpose of determining the claim for legal professional privilege.

The documents are privileged

1. I have examined the documents attached to the letter of 24 January 2013 from Solomon Brothers to my Associate.  The attached documents are documents 1387.48, 1387.50, 1387.52, 1387.54, 1387.56, 1387.57, 1387.58, 1387.59, 1387.60, 1387.62 and 1387.63.

2. I have read the affidavit of Lachlan Carlisle Bruce Richards affirmed 17 January 2013 and the affidavit of Amanda Sue Templeton sworn 18 January 2013.  I find that William Buck (WA) Pty Ltd retained Lavan Legal to act for it in relation to a dispute between it and Horwath (WA) Pty Ltd regarding the transfer of clients from Horwarth (WA) Pty Ltd to it.  The Lavan Legal solicitors working on the matter were Martin Bennett and Jeffrey Malone.  Craig Faulkner also retained Lavan Legal to act for him in relation to a potential claim against him by Horwarth in respect of a restraint of trade agreement.

3. I have examined the documents.  I have determined that each of the documents is the subject of legal professional privilege.  Some of the documents are communications between Mr Bennett or Mr Malone and directors or employees of William Buck for the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice in relation to the transfer of clients from Horwarth to William Buck or disclose such advice.  Those of the documents which are not communications by or to Mr Bennett or Mr Malone are communications between directors or employees of William Buck which disclose advice from Mr Bennett or Mr Malone or which are for the purpose of giving instructions to Lavan Legal.  The documents do not relate to a potential claim against Mr Faulkner by Horwarth in respect of a restraint of trade agreement.

The documents remain confidential and privileged

1. Many of the documents are addressed to, or copied to, Mr Faulkner.  The Faulkner parties say that those documents are not confidential as against Mr Faulkner and are not privileged as against him.  The William Buck parties say that the communications were confidential at the time they were made, have remained confidential and are privileged as against Mr Faulkner.

2. I prefer the argument of the William Buck parties as set out in [19] to [21] of their submissions dated 11 January 2013.  The documents communicated to Mr Faulkner were confidential at the time of their communication.  Mr Faulkner was a party to the communications in his capacity as an employee of William Buck, not in a personal or private capacity.  The documents have not ceased to be confidential because Mr Faulkner has ceased to be an employee of William Buck.  The legal professional privilege is the privilege of William Buck, not of its directors or employees in their private or personal capacities.