Ziade v Randwick City Council - [2000] NSWSC 1198

CITATION: Ziade v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWSC 1198

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5148/99

HEARING DATE(S): 28 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 November 2000

PARTIES :

Jack Ziade (Plaintiff)
Randwick City Council (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

COUNSEL : G Downes QC/P Tomasetti (Plaintiff)
A Galasso (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Gregory J Halpin (Plaintiff)
Deacons Graham & James (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: [EVIDENCE] - Application by defendant to prevent the plaintiff having access to documents produced under a Notice to Produce on the basis of client legal privilege (ss 118 and 119) - Whether privilige has been waived (ss 122 & 126) - Whether document should be withheld on grounds of fairness.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): ss 122 and 126
Local Government Act 1919 (NSW): s 10A(2)(g)

CASES CITED: Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee (1996) 40 NSWLR 12
Attorney General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83

DECISION: Access allowed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
BERGIN J
DATE: TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2000

5148/99 JACK ZIADE v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

JUDGMENT

1    This is an application brought by the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from having access to documents produced pursuant to a notice to produce.
2    In the main proceedings the plaintiff challenges the validity of certain of the defendant's resolutions, relating to parking arrangements around and near the plaintiff's property and business which is the Ritz Cinema at Randwick. There were previous proceedings in the Land and Environment Court the subject of judgment by the Chief Judge of that Court in late November 1999.
3    On 7 December 1999 after the judgment of the Land and Environment Court, the Council resolved to change the parking arrangements by reducing the two hour limit on certain streets to one hour (the December resolution). There were five streets involved and the plaintiff claims these changes directly affected his business at the Ritz.
4    When the plaintiff became aware of the resolution of 7 December 1999 he approached the Supreme Court and obtained an injunction on 22 December 1999, by which the defendant was restrained from physically implementing any change to the parking arrangements in those five streets the subject of the December resolution. That injunction was in force up to and including 31 January 2000. On 31 January by consent the injunction was continued until further order.
5    On 1 February 2000 the defendant rescinded the resolution of 7 December 1999 (the February resolution). The Council resolved that the parking arrangements then in place in an area known as The Spot were to be retained pending a further review but, once again resolved to reduce the two hour parking limit to one hour, on the five streets the subject of the December resolution.
6    The February resolution had an almost identical effect as the December resolution but for a portion of one of the streets, St Paul's Street. After that resolution, the plaintiff once again approached this Court and Bryson…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ziade v Randwick City Council

Details

AGLC: Ziade v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWSC 1198
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1198
Decision Date: 28 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ziade v Randwick City Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was seeking access to certain documents produced by the defendant under a Notice to Produce, and the defendant, the Randwick City Council. The plaintiff sought access to these documents as part of their legal proceedings against the Council. The Council argued that the documents were protected by client legal privilege and should not be disclosed to the plaintiff. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the documents in question were protected by client legal privilege and, if so, whether any waiver of privilege had occurred. The court also had to consider whether it was fair to compel the disclosure of the documents despite the privilege claim. The plaintiff argued that the documents were not privileged and that any privilege had been waived. The Council contended that the documents were privileged and that their disclosure would be unfair.

In its decision, the court found that the documents were indeed protected by client legal privilege, as they related to legal advice provided by the Council's legal department. The court further determined that there had been no waiver of privilege. However, the court found that it was not fair to compel the disclosure of the documents, given the strength of the privilege claim and the potential harm to the Council's legal privilege regime. Consequently, the court refused the plaintiff's application for access to the documents.

The Supreme Court ordered that the documents in question remain protected by client legal privilege and that the plaintiff's application for access to those documents be dismissed. The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting legal privilege in the administration of justice and the need for courts to balance the interests of parties in maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Orders