-
Gibbins v Bayside Council
[2020] NSWSC 1795
Citation 1
…ollows if several purposes are of roughly similar weight, and it cannot be said that one prevails over the other. In Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2; [1980] AC 521 (‘ Waugh ’) at 543, Lord Edmund-Davies adopted the dominant purpose test propounded by Barwick CJ in Grant v Downs , and stated that the…
-
El Rashidy and El Rashidy and Anor
[2019] FamCA 402
Citation 2
(Para 6)
…ral purposes are of roughly similar weight, and it cannot be said that one prevails over the other. In Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2; [1980] AC 521 (‘ Waugh’ ) at 543, Lord Edmund-Davies adopted the dominant purpose test propounded by Barwick CJ in Grant v Downs , and stated that the element of cl…
-
QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No.2)
[2011] NSWADT 79
Citation 3
…orations or bureaucracies which will often have their own internal legal staff. Their Honours referred (at 66 [38]) to Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2; (1980) AC 521 where a report of an internal inquiry into a railway accident was prepared for two purposes - to assist the Board to decide whether th…
-
Priest v State of New South Wales
[2006] NSWSC 1281
Citation 4
…of Australia v Vance [2005] 157 ACTR 47 R v Shirose (1999) 133 CCC(3d) 257 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 Waugh v British Railways Board (1980) AC 521 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Idoport Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Limited [2006] NSWSC 1191 Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 R v…
-
Kingston, Lindsay John v State Fire Commission
[1998] TASSC 140
Citation 5
…that the availability of the claim for privilege is lost once the document passes into the possession of another who may then tender it in evidence ( Waugh v British Railways Board (1980) AC 521, at p 536 ). The same holds true for a copy (see generally Bell v David Jones Ltd (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 223, at pp 227-228; Kuruma v The Queen (1…
-
Karen Shelmerdine v Bronwyn Mewett No. SCGRG 92/2156 Judgment No. 3932 Number of Pages 11 Defamation
[1993] SASC 3932
Citation 6
…malice unless that is shown to be the dominant motive for the defendant's publication. (Dominant should be understood in the sense of "paramount": cf Waugh v British Railways Board (1980) AC 521 at 543.) (b) Express malice is not established where the defendant's belief in the truth of what he published is the result of carelessness, i…
-
Waterford v the Commonwealth
[1987] HCA 25
Citation 7
…17. The legal advice which a government receives in its capacity as a litigant or potential litigant is in no different position from legal advice received by the ordinary citizen. Confidential communications between a government in that capacity and its qualified legal advisers for the purpose of g…
-
Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney
[1985] HCA 60
Citation 8
…19. The number of cases in which the circumstances may call for consideration of Crown privilege will be limited in comparison with the number of cases in which, although governmental functions may be involved, the only question of privilege will be that of legal professional privilege. Crown privil…
-
Baker v Campbell
[1983] HCA 39
Citation 9
…12. Although the relationship between solicitor and client imposes on the solicitor a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to keep inviolate his client's confidences, that in itself has not been held to be a sufficient reason for holding that legal professional confidences are privileged from disclo…
-
Argyle Brewery P/L trading as the Craig Brewery Bar & Grill v Darling Harbourside (Sydney) P/L
[1993] FCA 1025
Citation 10
…e first place, it is well-established that the onus is on Argyle: it is for the party refusing disclosure to establish his right to refuse (see, e.g. Waugh v British Railways Board (1980) AC 521 at 541.) As Dawson J, in the passage cited from Maurice's Case (at 496) has pointed out, a statement of claim is not privileged, even if draft…
-
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Ltd
[1989] FCA 161
Citation 11
…"According to authority, it seems that the availability of the claim for privilege is lost once the document passes into the possession of another who may then tender it in evidence (Waugh v. British Railways Board (1980) AC 521 at p 536). The same holds true for a copy (see generally Bell v. David …
-
Commonwealth of Australia v Frost, S
[1982] FCA 113
Citation 12
…In considering whether the Commonwealth has this right, it is also important to have in mind the reasons for the recognition of legal professional privilege in cases coming before the Courts. They are stated in Waugh v. British Railways Board ((1980) A.C. 521)in the following passage from the reason…
-
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (No 3)
[1981] FCA 59
Citation 13
…Now I am speaking fairly broadly in the way I have phrased that. I have been referred to the cases of Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company Limited v. London North Western Railway Company (1913) 3 K.B. 850, Grant v. Downs (1976) 135 C.L.R. 674 and Waugh v. British Railways Board (1980) A.C. 5…