Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1525 - podcast episode cover

Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1525

Nov 22, 20229 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

"Investigation isn't legal advice. You waived privilege!"

___

D discovered ~29K documents in a piece of litigation, and claimed ~9K were privileged: [1]   The Court considered 27 representative docs. The docs included docs about an ASIC investigation re “fees for no service” claims: [2]   

D had to prove the docs were privileged. If privileged, P had to prove privilege had been waived: [6]   D had self-reported the “fees for no service” issue, engaged various large law firms, and itself had a big in-house legal team: [17], [18]   

In 2017 D engaged one firm to provide D called findings and advice, claiming privilege would attach to both: [24] – [27]   

P argued the firm was engaged to investigate, rather than provide advice, meaning that firm’s work would not be privileged: [28]   

The Court was also taken to an admission from the D during the Hayne RC that “it did not need to receive legal advice to know that [it] cannot charge somebody for services that [it is] not providing”: [28]   

Importantly privilege is for legal advice rather than commercial or PR advice, though the concept of legal advice includes what a client should prudently or sensibly do, including in relation to an investigation: [34] – [37]   

The dominant purpose is the thrust of the privilege. A document prepared for a number of reasons, with none dominant, is not privileged: [38], [39]   

In relation to a report sent by external lawyers, to D’s in-house lawyers, and then to D’s senior executives, the Court found the dominant purpose of each email was legal advice to D. So they were privileged: [50]   

Similarly, in relation to legal advice on the implications of the report, privilege attached: [53]   D produced the report (but not the associated advice) to the ASIC without a claim for privilege: [94]   

P claimed this was a waiver of privilege of all documents concerned with the firm’s engagement: [95]   

Reference to existence of privileged material is not enough for waiver, the contents of the privileged material must be relied upon for privilege to be waived: [99], [100]   

The Court found that by waiving privilege in the report, D did not waive privilege in the advice. Privilege can by waived over the factual investigation report, and maintained in the subsequent legal advice given based on that report: [106]   The report could be understood without the help of the legal advice.: [106]   

The Court found the sample documents were privileged with no waiver. P was ordered to pay D’s costs: [128], [129]   

_  

If you'd like to contact me please look for James d'Apice or Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite social media spot - I should pop up right away!  #coffeeandacasenote​​​​​​​​ #auslaw​​​​​​​​

For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android