|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Federal Court of Australia |
Last Updated: 2 April 2007
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 3
CORRIGENDUM
JOHN
ERIC BARNES and JUDITH ANGELA BARNES v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
WAD 26 OF 2006
NICHOLSON J
9
JANUARY 2007 (CORRIGENDUM 21 MARCH 2007)
PERTH
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
|
|
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
WAD 26 OF 2006
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
JOHN ERIC BARNES
JUDITH ANGELA BARNES Applicants |
|
AND:
|
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA
Respondent |
|
JUDGE:
|
NICHOLSON J
|
|
DATE OF ORDER:
|
9 JANUARY 2007 (CORRIGENDUM 21 MARCH 2007)
|
|
WHERE MADE:
|
PERTH
|
CORRIGENDUM
In the Certification and Counsel section of the Reasons for Judgment
delivered on 9 January 2007, ‘Counsel for the Applicants:
A
Bevilacqua’ be amended to ‘Counsel for the Applicants: P
Bevilacqua’ and ‘Counsel for the Respondent: R Robertson
SC’ be amended to ‘Counsel for the Respondent: A Robertson SC
and JD Allanson’.
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of
the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice
Nicholson.
|
Associate:
Dated: 21 March 2007
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 3
EVIDENCE – legal professional privilege – communications
including documents placed by applicants or their servants and
agents with their
legal advisors for the purpose of receiving legal advice on tax and financial
matters – principles applicable
to claim – objections to affidavit
evidence – liberty to file supplementary affidavits of servants and agents
in relation
to hearsay the subject of objection – opportunity not taken
– no discharge of onus on applicants to establish the
privilege
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
s 135
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
s 263
Allen Allen and Hemsley v Commissioner of Taxation
(1989) 20 FCR 576
AWB Limited v Honourable Terrence Rhoderic Hudson
Cole (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234
AWB Limited v Honourable Terrence
Rhoderic Hudson Cole [2006] FCA 571
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v
Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49
Federal Commissioner of
Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd (2005) 225 ALR 266
Federal
Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Ltd [1996] HCA 34; (1996) 186 CLR
404
Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674
Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCAFC 337;
(2004) 142 FCR 185
Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian
WorkCover Authority [2002] VSCA 59; (2002) 4 VR 332
Packer v District Commissioner of
Taxation (Qld) [1985] 1 Qd R 275
Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2;
[1980] AC
521
JOHN
ERIC BARNES and JUDITH ANGELA BARNES v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
WAD 26 OF 2006
NICHOLSON J
9
JANUARY 2007
PERTH
|
AND:
|
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicants claim of legal professional privilege in respect of the documents in the schedule to the within reasons for judgment be dismissed.
2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including any costs arising from the issue of the writ of summons in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Note: Settlement and
entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
|
|
|
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
|
AND:
|
|
DATE:
|
9 JANUARY 2007
|
|
PLACE:
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicants seek a declaration that legal professional privilege attaches to certain communications constituted by or disclosed in documents listed in a schedule, to the details of which reference will later be made. 2 The issue arose in the following circumstances. By notice dated 6 June 2005 issued pursuant to s 263 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (the Notice), the respondent sought and was afforded access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers related, either directly or indirectly, to inter alia:
(1) Barnes Development Pty Ltd;
(2) Barnes Family Trust;
(3) The first named applicant;
(4) The second named applicant;
(5) Multinational Technical Services Inc;
(6) Pantheon Trust;
(7) Phillip de Figueiredo;
(8) Philip Jepson Egglishaw;
(9) Roker Nominees Limited;
(10) Roker Trustees (Jersey) Limited;
(11) Sanderstead Limited;
(12) Sapphire Superannuation Fund; and
(13) Strachans SA.
When affording the respondent such access the applicants asserted legal professional privilege attached to certain documents.
3 On 6 July 2005, the respondent and the applicants, through their solicitors, entered into an agreement titled ‘Terms of Inspection’ to facilitate access to the documents and to enable the applicants’ claims of legal professional privilege to be asserted and tested. In accordance with that agreement and by a notice dated 22 July 2005, the applicants by their solicitors claimed legal professional privilege in respect of 79 documents identified in a schedule to the notice and set out in a schedule to the amended statement of claim. By a further notice dated 29 July 2005, the applicants by their solicitors claimed legal professional privilege in respect of a further three documents identified in a schedule to that notice and again set out in the schedule to the amended statement of claim. 4 The agreement provided inter alia:
‘...
35. The Commissioner will inspect the lists referred to in clauses 11 and 24 above. ... [the Schedules] ...
36. If, after doing so, the Commissioner still seeks to access any document or documents in ...[the Schedules]... , the Commissioner will give 7 business days written notice to that effect to ...[the Applicants] ..., specifying such document or documents.
37. At the expiration of those 7 business days ...[referred to in clause 36]... the Commissioner will access the documents taken to the premises as described in clause 6 under clauses 6, 10 and 28 but limited to those documents listed in the notice given by the Commissioner under ...[clause]... 36 above, and the ...[Applicants]... expressly agrees to him doing so and shall be taken to have waived any claim that the documents listed in the notice attract LPP, in whole or part, unless, and save to the extent that, within those 7 business days, the ...[Applicants have] ... commenced legal proceedings in a competent Court seeking to maintain LPP and serving the originating process on the Commonwealth ...’
5 By a letter dated 2 December 2005 the respondent gave written notice to the applicants that he still sought access to all of the documents listed in the schedules to the applicants’ notice. By letter dated 22 December 2005 the applicants claimed legal professional privilege in respect of a further 29 documents identified in the letter and set out as items in the schedule to the amended statement of claim. In January 2006, the respondent agreed to the further 29 documents being included among the documents over which legal professional privilege was claimed in the proceedings, subject to the respondent reserving his right to assert that the privilege in those documents had been waived. 6 The precise claim of privilege made by the applicants was in the following terms:
‘10. All of the communications recorded in, constituted by, or disclosed in, the documents in Schedule 1 are privileged because each of the documents is either:
10.1 a document created by the [applicants] and or their servants, or agents and provided to their solicitors for the sole, and therefore dominant, purpose of seeking and receiving legal advice; or
10.2 a copy document copied and provided by the [applicants] and or their servants or agents to their solicitors for the sole, and therefore dominant, purpose of seeking and receiving legal advice.’
7 When the matter first came on for hearing there were three issues before the Court:
(a) whether any of those documents or the communications they evidence are subject to legal professional privilege;
(b) whether the applicants have waived privilege in relation to the 29 documents or the communications they evidence;
(c) whether the privilege does not attach to those documents or the communications they evidence because they were made in furtherance of a purpose that is contrary to public interest.
The respondent no longer presses issues (b) or (c).
8 The claim of privilege in relation to the access to documents by the Notice under s 263 is to be determined according to the common law, and not Pt 3.10, Div 1 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) since no evidence is, relevantly, sought to be adduced.
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
9 The only evidence before the Court was brought by the applicants. The documents in question are in evidence. In addition there is an affidavit of the first named applicant made with the authority of the second named applicant. 10 There are objections to the following three paragraphs of the affidavit of the first named applicant:
‘9. All of the documents that came into the possession of Mr Calder and Butcher Paull and Calder were for the purpose of advising my wife and I as to our tax and our legal position respect to tax, and financial matters.
10. I have seen the list of documents referred to in my Statement of Claim. The documents listed in the Statement of Claim are documents of the type referred to in paragraph 8. I claim privilege for those documents.
11. I refer to the Amended Statement of Claim and the Further and Better Particulars of Statement of Claim filed in these proceedings and say that the contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.’
11 The respondent’s objection to [9] is that it is conclusionary and devoid of any primary facts. His objection to [10] is the second sentence which he claims is also conclusionary. The reference which it makes to [8] is a reference to the following paragraph:
‘8. My wife and I wish to claim legal professional privilege in respect to the documents that we supplied to Mr Calder, his legal notes, and the correspondence passing between Mr Calder, my wife and I, and our other advisers.’
The respondent’s objection to [11] so far as it refers to the amended statement of claim is that it is putting into evidence the conclusion which the claim pleads. So far as that paragraph refers to further and better particulars, the applicants accept that it contains hearsay. In this aspect, it is objectionable as it stands. With reference to its application to the further and better particulars, these identify which of the documents in issue were created by the servants and agents of the applicants and provided to the applicants’ solicitors by their servants or agents. Given that this hearsay objection was capable of remedy by further evidence and given that the hearing of the proceeding was adjourned until a date later in the year for the hearing of issue (c), I considered that liberty should be granted to the applicants to file evidence remedying the hearsay objections.
12 That opportunity having been offered, no additional evidence was filed by them. 13 It is common ground that all of the 111 documents in respect of which legal professional privilege is sought were in the possession of the applicants’ solicitors and specifically of Mr Calder of that firm. It is in that context that [9] must be read. In my view [9] does contain reference to a primary fact and that is, that the applicants passed the documents into the possession of their solicitors and specifically of Mr Calder because they wished to seek his advice on their legal position with respect to tax and financial matters. That is, the paragraph should not be read as expressing a conclusion pre-empting the task of the Court. Rather, it is stating why it was that the applicants placed the documents in the possession of their solicitors. I therefore do not allow the objection to [9]. 14 In relation to the second sentence of [10], the applicants accept it adds nothing to the evidence. It refers to facts covered both by [8] of the affidavit of the first named applicant and the agreed common ground. On that basis the objection should be allowed. 15 With reference to [11] and its application to the amended statement of claim, I accept the respondent’s submission and allow the objection. 16 Accordingly, I will admit as exhibit A the affidavit of the first named applicant, other than the second sentence of [8] and [11].
APPLICANTS’ EVIDENCE
17 The effect of that evidence is that it establishes that the applicants became residents of Australia in July 1996 or thereabouts. They have been business people for many years, always consulting lawyers and accountants concerning financial and tax planning matters. 18 In accordance with that long standing practice, when they came to Australia they consulted lawyers and accountants. In particular, they consulted Mr Calder (a solicitor) of the applicants’ solicitors and Mr Tayler (an accountant) of Paul M Tayler & Co. In the course of briefing Mr Calder concerning their financial tax matters they provided him with a number of documents. 19 The applicants depose:
‘5. In the course of briefing Mr Calder about our financial and tax matters, my wife and I provided him with a number of documents such as immigration papers, financial documents and copies of letters of advice from accountants and lawyers whom we had previously briefed.
6. My wife and I also sent letters and facsimiles to Mr Calder concerning our tax and financial affairs and he in turn wrote to us providing advice about our tax and financial matters.
7. I am aware that Mr Calder usually made notes of his conversations when he saw my wife and I.’
20 In the affidavit the applicants stated that they were formally the owners of two properties in the United Kingdom, namely, Field House and Rockhead Farm. In November 1997 they sold the two properties to Sanderstead Limited. The sale price was ₤415 000 for Rockhead Farm and ₤85 000 for Field House. They stated that the sale price was in accordance with valuations which they obtained at the time and which are in the possession of the respondent. At the time of the transfer the two properties were only a small part of their asset portfolio. They sought advice from Mr Calder regarding the sale, although that was only one element of the matters on which they sought his advice. 21 A large number of documents to which the respondent seeks access are not related to the two properties or to the Pantheon Trust. The two properties have a small holding income but otherwise have always been loss making. Neither of the applicants have any legal interest in Sanderstead Limited or the Pantheon Trust, not being directors, owners, beneficiaries or trustees. This is relevant in relation to whether the documents fall within the scope of the Notice. This point was not effectively argued.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
22 The onus of establishing that legal professional privilege applies to the documents or the communications they evidence is on the applicants: Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674 (Grant v Downs 135 CLR) at 689; Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2002] VSCA 59; (2002) 4 VR 332 (Mitsubishi Electric [2001] VSCA 181; 4 VR). 23 A document created for the ‘dominant purpose’ of obtaining legal advice attracts privilege: Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49 (Esso 201 CLR) at 73, at [61]. The ‘dominant purpose’ test is that expressed by Barwick CJ in Grant v Downs 135 CLR at 677:
‘... a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection.’
The dominant purpose may be described as the ruling, prevailing, paramount or most influential purpose: see Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Ltd [1996] HCA 34; (1996) 186 CLR 404 at 416; and Mitsubishi Electric 4 VR at 336-337. It is not the same as the ‘primary’ or the ‘substantial’ purpose, which do not describe the true basis of the privilege: Grant v Downs 135 CLR at 678.
24 Where two purposes are of equal weight, neither is dominant in the relevant sense. A document is not privileged from production where one purpose for its creation is to obtain legal advice, but there are one or more equally important purposes: see Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2; [1980] AC 521 at 543; AWB Limited v Honourable Terrence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (2006) 152 FCR 582 (AWB v Cole 152 FCR) at [106]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd (2005) 225 ALR 266 at 279-280. 25 The question of dominant purpose may ultimately be decided, if need be, upon an inspection by the Judge of the document itself: see Grant v Downs 135 CLR at 677 and 689 and Esso 201 CLR at 70. It is accepted in this case that the Court will need to inspect the documents for the purpose of ascertaining the dominant purpose for which they were brought into existence and whether they are thus subject to the privilege. 26 The most recent judicial examination of the law of legal professional privilege is that carried out by Young J in AWB v Cole 152 FCR and AWB Limited v Honourable Terrence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234 (Cole No 5 FCA 1234). The general principles so far as they were relevant to the disposition of the case before him were summarised in Cole No 5 FCA 1234 at [44], the following paragraphs of which are particularly relevant to this proceeding:
‘(1) ... The onus might be discharged by evidence as to the circumstances and context in which the communications occurred or the documents were brought into existence, or by evidence as to the purposes of the person who made the communication, or authored the document, or procured its creation. It might also be discharged by reference to the nature of the documents, supported by argument or submissions: see ... Grant v Downs at 689; Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd (2005) 225 ALR 266 at 278 [30] (‘FCT v Pratt Holdings’); and AWB v Cole at [63].
(2) The purpose for which a document is brought into existence is a question of fact that must be determined objectively. Evidence of the intention of the document’s maker, or of the person who authorised or procured it, is not necessarily conclusive. It may be necessary to examine the evidence concerning the purpose of other persons involved in the hierarchy of decision-making or consultation that led to the creation of the document and its subsequent communication: see AWB v Cole at [110].
(3) ... There will be cases in which a claim of privilege will not be sustainable in the absence of evidence identifying the circumstances in which the relevant communication took place and the topics to which the instructions or advice were directed: Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCAFC 337; (2004) 142 FCR 185 (‘Kennedy v Wallace’) at 189–190 [12]–[17] per Black CJ and Emmett J and at 211–212 [144]–[145] and at 215–216 [166]–[171] per Allsop J; see also Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Andersen & Co (No 6) [2001] SASC 398.
(4) Where communications take place between a client and his or her independent legal advisers, or between a client’s in-house lawyers and those legal advisers, it may be appropriate to assume that legitimate legal advice was being sought, absent any contrary indications: Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 208 ALR 424 at 442 [65] per Gyles J; affirmed on appeal, Kennedy v Wallace at 191-192 [23]-[27] per Black CJ and Emmett J. In Kennedy v Wallace, Black CJ and Emmett J inclined to the view that in the ordinary case of a client consulting a lawyer about a legal problem in uncontroversial circumstances, proof of those facts alone will provide a sufficient basis for a conclusion that legitimate legal advice is being sought or given.
...
(7) The concept of legal advice is fairly wide. It extends to professional advice as to what a party should prudently or sensibly do in the relevant legal context; but it does not extend to advice that is purely commercial or of a public relations character: Balabel v Air India [1988] 1 Ch 317 (‘Balabel’) at 323 and 330; Nederlandse Reassurantie Groep Holding NV v Bacon and Woodrow [1995] 1 All ER 976 (‘Nederlandse’) at 983; Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) [2004] UKHL 48; [2005] 1 AC 610 (‘Three Rivers’) at 652-653 [43]-[44], 657-658 [59]-[60], 681 [114] and 683 [120]; Dalleagles Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 4 WAR 325 (‘Dalleagles’) at 332-333; DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc [2003] FCA 1191; (2003) 135 FCR 151 (‘DSE’) at 161-173 [25]–[71]; and AWB v Cole at [100]-[101].
(8) Legal professional privilege protects the disclosure of documents that record legal work carried out by the lawyer for the benefit of the client, such as research memoranda, collations and summaries of documents, chronologies and the like, whether or not they are actually provided to the client: Daniels at 563 [44] per McHugh J; Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 3; (1997) 188 CLR 501 (‘Propend’) at 550 per McHugh J; Dalleagles at 333–334 per Anderson J; Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 (‘Stirling’) at 245–246 per Lockhart J; and Kennedy v Lyell (1883) 23 Ch D 387 at 407; Lyell v Kennedy (1884) 27 Ch D 1 at 31 per Bowen LJ; Propend Finance Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1995) 58 FCR 224 at 266 per Lindgren J.
...
(11) Legal professional privilege protects communications rather than documents, as the test for privilege is anchored to the purpose for which the document was brought into existence. Consequently, legal professional privilege can attach to copies of non-privileged documents if the purpose of bringing the copy into existence satisfies the dominant purpose test: Propend at 507 per Brennan CJ, 544 per Gaudron J, 553-554 per McHugh J, 571-572 per Gummow J, and 587 per Kirby J. In Propend at 512, Brennan CJ added a qualification to this principle: if an original unprivileged document is not in existence or its location is not disclosed or is not accessible to the persons seeking to execute the warrant, and if no unprivileged copy or other admissible evidence is made available to prove the contents of the original, the otherwise privileged copy loses its protection.’
27 In order to apply these principles to the applicants’ claim it is necessary to address each of the documents in question.
CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS
28 It is important to observe that the evidence of Mr Barnes does not state precisely how each of the documents was created. This is also the case with regard to copies. His statement in [5] that he provided copies of letters of advice to Mr Calder does not make apparent whether the copy came into existence for the purpose of advice, whether a pre-existing copy was sent to Mr Calder or whether the copy before the Court was made by Mr Calder’s office. The absence of such evidence permeates the resolution of his claim for privilege. 29 For example, there is no evidence enabling an understanding to be reached concerning the possibility that any particular faxed copy was created by the applicants for the dominant purpose of seeking the legal advice of Mr Calder. There is no evidence of what the fax number of the applicants was on each particular occasion (other than their names as a notation at the top of the document) or what the phone number of the recipient was and whether it was the number of Mr Calder. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether the faxed endorsements are referrable to some occasion prior to the applicants sending documents to Mr Calder for legal advice. 30 Additionally, it cannot be inferred from the fact that the documents were found in the possession of Mr Calder that they were created as originals or copies for the requisite dominant purpose in each case. 31 Likewise there is no evidence to explain why some of the documents bear the fax name of the applicants’ accountant or whether the accountant created the copy. 32 There are some documents which on their face appear to be facsimile transmissions from the applicants to their solicitors. However, the copy in question appears to be a further copy of the facsimile transmission because it displays a photocopy of a punchmark, unlikely to be on the original. In the absence of specific evidence pertaining to each such document it cannot be said that the applicants have discharged the onus resting upon them. 33 Even where documents appear to be file copies of correspondence from the applicants’ solicitors to the applicants, they also appear with a punch-hole suggesting they are further copies, the creation of which is unexplained by any evidence from the applicants’ solicitors. 34 There are some documents apparently being copies of handwritten letters from the first named applicant to his solicitors. One is notated with writing indicating the date of its receipt by the solicitors. That suggests the original (or the copy original) has been recopied, possibly by the solicitors. However, there is no evidence to explain the creation of the copy. 35 The Court doubtless would have been greatly assisted by affidavit evidence from each applicant on each document and affidavits from Mr Calder and the applicants’ accountants. However, when the opportunity was offered to the applicants to file such evidence, no additional evidence was tendered. 36 It is also the case that there is no evidence concerning the role and position of the various persons identified in the schedule and most importantly any agency that may have existed with them to the applicants, namely Phillip Egglishaw (documents 41, 47, 83, 84, 104 and 109), Phil de Figueiredo (documents 39, 43 and 108), Strachans (documents 38, 93, 96, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 111), Sanderstead (documents 86, 87 and 100) and Pantheon Trust (documents 89 and 97). 37 Documents 54, 78 and 80 are accounts for legal fees; document 85 is a bank statement; and there are receipt and payment schedules; schedules of fees; and fee notes in relation to Strachans, Pantheon Trust and Sanderstead Limited (documents 85-89, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105 and 106). It is only where a solicitor’s fee note discloses instructions, or advice sought or given that it would attract privilege: see Packer v District Commissioner of Taxation (Qld) [1985] 1 Qd R 275 at 276-277, 281-282 and 287; Allen Allen and Hemsley v Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 20 FCR 576 affirming 81 ALR 617; a fortiori, where the account or fee is not that of a solicitor. 38 Further, it is apparent from the description of many of the documents that they are not of a kind that would normally attract privilege. See for example: (a) document 2 – contact details; (b) document 3 – declaration of trust provisions; (c) document 4 – declaration regarding visa application; (d) document 21 – letter enclosing new wills; (e) documents 24 and 45 – transaction material; (f) document 55 – portfolio valuation; and (g) document 75 – outline of proposed development of holiday accommodation at Rock Head Farm, Glaisdale. 39 Consequently it is apparent that the applicants have failed to discharge the onus upon them to establish privilege. It is not sufficient that the documents are at the premises of the applicants’ solicitors or that there is an assertion by the claimant applicants that they were copies in the possession of their solicitor for the purpose of him giving them advice. The effect of the evidence here is similar to that described by Black CJ and Emmett J in Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCAFC 337; (2004) 142 FCR 185 at 189, at [13]:
‘[13] The appellant’s decision to base his claim for privilege in this way was attended with considerable risk since, as Lockhart J observed in National Crime Authority v S (1991) 29 FCR 203 at 211, it is not sufficient for a party merely to assert a claim for privilege nor will an affidavit asserting the purpose for which a document was brought into existence followed by a statement about the category of legal professional privilege to which the document is said to belong necessarily be sufficient. Moreover, in the leading case of Grant v Downes [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674, Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ warned against the erroneous view that the privilege is "necessarily or conclusively established by resort to any verbal formula or ritual" (at 689). In the same case, their Honours also observed that whatever the facts may be, it is always for the party claiming privilege to show that the documents for which the claim is made are in fact privileged.
...
[15] ... Mr Kennedy agreed that he had little recollection of the actual circumstances under which the notes were prepared. While Mr Kennedy’s uncertainty about matters such as the precise time of the preparation of the documents is not decisive, when coupled with the failure to explain his thought processes, it could legitimately have been seen by the trial judge as relevant and significant.’
40 Although there is an entire absence of document by document evidence I have examined each document and rule on it in accordance with the notations added to the schedule.
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date
|
Summary of Content
|
Original Recipient
|
No of Pages
|
|
|
|
‘SCHEDULE’
|
|
|
|
1
|
Undated
|
Facsimile forwarding letter from client’s solicitor (UK) to Cooper
Parry
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy. |
Paul Tayler
|
5
|
|
2
|
Undated
|
Miscellaneous contact details
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
3
|
Undated
|
Declaration of Trust provisions
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
44
|
|
4
|
4/03/96
|
Declaration for people applying business skills (Migrant) Visa subclasses
127, 128, 129 and 130
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Australian High Commission London
|
1
|
|
5
|
12/03/96
|
Providing background information in relation to Mr and Mrs Barnes and their
financial affairs
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Anthony Austin
|
5
|
|
6
|
15/03/96
|
Comments/response to questions raised regarding Australian Taxation
implication of the Barnes’ affairs
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
6
|
|
7
|
18/03/96
|
Response to enquiries contained in letter of 15 March 1996 regarding John
& Judy Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
5
|
|
8
|
18/03/96
|
Request of further clarification of Australian Taxation Law
implication
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
2
|
|
9
|
19/03/96
|
Request for clarification of Australian Taxation implications of proposed
financial arrangements
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
4
|
|
10
|
19/03/96
|
Request for further legal advice and confirmation of appropriateness of
proposed arrangements
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
2
|
|
11
|
19/03/96
|
Response to various enquiries contained in letter of 18 March 1996
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
3
|
|
12
|
20/03/96
|
Advice on Australian Taxation Law
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
3
|
|
13
|
22/03/96
|
Legal advice on proposed financial arrangements
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
2
|
|
14
|
1/04/96
|
Confirmation of issue of Australian Visas and enclosing various documents
(eg UK passports)
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs Barnes
|
5
|
|
15
|
2/04/96
|
Request for advice regarding Australian Taxation Law
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
1
|
|
16
|
3/04/96
|
Advice in response to specific questions regarding CFC regime, FIF regime
and general tax provisions
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
4
|
|
17
|
3/04/96
|
Request for advice regarding Australian Taxation Law
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
3
|
|
18
|
4/04/96
|
Response/answers to Ms Golinghams facsimile/request of same date
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
3
|
|
19
|
12/04/96
|
Request for further information
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Jeff Faure, Minter Ellison
|
1
|
|
20
|
15/04/96
|
Response to queries raised in facsimile of 12 April 1996
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Yvonne Goldingham, Eversheds
|
2
|
|
21
|
20/05/96
|
Letter enclosing new Wills
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs Barnes
|
1
|
|
22
|
21/06/96
|
Advice on possible cash flows
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
3
|
|
23
|
21/06/96
|
Advice regarding sale of company assets and proceeds of sale
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
D Styles, Barclays Bank
|
2
|
|
24
|
30/07/96
|
Post completion check list
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
9
|
|
25
|
2/08/96
|
Request for further information in preparation of UK tax returns
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs J Barnes
|
2
|
|
26
|
6/02/97
|
Letter containing advice and attaching statements of account as at 5
February 1997
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
3
|
|
27
|
2/04/97
|
Provision of background information
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
28
|
7/04/97
|
Letter enclosing letter and forms received from general accident
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs Barnes
|
|
|
29
|
8/04/97
|
Handwritten notes of meeting between Mr and Mrs Barnes and Mr
Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
30
|
9/04/97
|
Facsimile attaching copies of Eversheds questions to Minter
Ellison
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder and Paul Tayler
|
1
|
|
31
|
28/04/97
|
Request for advice and provision of copy wills
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
9
|
|
32
|
12/05/97
|
Letter requesting further meeting
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
2
|
|
33
|
21/05/97
|
Notes taken during meeting between Mr Calder and Mr Tayler and Mr and Mrs
Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
34
|
21/05/97
|
Answer for request for UK bank account details
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
35
|
10/06/97
|
Draft Deed of Indemnity
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
4
|
|
36
|
11/06/97
|
Documents copied to Mr Calder by Mr Barnes together with request for
further legal advice
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
6
|
|
37
|
11/06/97
|
Draft Deed of Indemnity
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
5
|
|
38
|
16/06/97
|
Response by Strachans regarding enquiries made of them by Mr
Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
3
|
|
39
|
18/06/97
|
Enquiries regarding arrangements or proposed arrangements in respect of the
Barnes’ affairs
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr De Figueiredo
|
2
|
|
40
|
18/06/97
|
Letter of advice
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs Barnes
|
1
|
|
41
|
18/06/97
|
Note of telephone attendance of Mr Calder on Mr Egglishaw regarding Mr and
Mrs Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
42
|
18/06/97
|
Documents copied to Mr Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
4
|
|
43
|
19/06/97
|
Copy letters provided by Mr De Figueiredo to Mr Calder regarding the
Barnes’ affairs
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
5
|
|
44
|
6/08/97
|
Letter from GLC to Cooper Parry enclosing various list of
documents
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Messrs Coopers-Parry
|
1
|
|
45
|
14/11/97
|
Solicitor’s letter confirming sale of Rock Head Farm and Field House
together with completion statement and bank account statement
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr J Barnes
|
3
|
|
46
|
1/10/98
|
Statement of Residential Complimentary Health Care Centre at Rock Head
Farm, Glaisdale
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
3
|
|
47
|
6/10/98
|
Notes of meeting between Mr Calder, Mr and Mrs Barnes and Mr
Egglishaw
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
2
|
|
48
|
30/10/99
|
Letter confirming meeting with Mr Calder on 29 October 1998 attaching list
of documents held in safe custody by Butcher Paull &
Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Joyce Barnes
|
3
|
|
49
|
3/12/99
|
Summary of position and financial planning objectives
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr and Mrs Barnes
|
2
|
|
50
|
22/03/00
|
Notes regarding meeting between Mr Barnes and Mr Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
51
|
13/02/01
|
Discussion document regarding potential UK residency for Mr and Mrs
Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
4
|
|
52
|
5/02/02
|
Note of advice given during meeting between GLC and MB on 5 February
2002
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
53
|
17/04/03
|
Notes and instructions provided to Mr Calder to prepare for proposed
meeting on 30 April 2003
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
5
|
|
54
|
20/06/03
|
Account for legal fees together with schedule detailing services
provided
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Paul Tayler & Co Pty Ltd
|
3
|
|
55
|
2/11/03
|
Up to date portfolio valuation together with receipt and payments
schedules
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
13
|
|
56
|
24/09/04
|
Enclosing letter of instruction regarding proposed Spanish property
acquisition
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
3
|
|
57
|
27/09/04
|
Notes regarding proposed Spanish property purchase
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
6
|
|
58
|
11/10/04
|
On forwarding of letter from Mr Barnes to "Phillip" together with various
other documents relating to Rock Head Farm
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
10
|
|
59
|
18/10/04
|
Advice regarding meeting relating to possible acquisition of Spanish
property
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
60
|
19/10/04
|
Handwritten notes following telephone conversation
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
|
|
61
|
20/10/04
|
Notes regarding proposed Spanish property purchase
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
10
|
|
62
|
21/10/04
|
Notes following meeting
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
63
|
1/11/04
|
Facsimile attaching UK company structure notes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
4
|
|
64
|
19/11/04
|
Email attaching email to Sam Lawson
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
2
|
|
65
|
5/12/04
|
Structural diagram and figures noted in meeting with Mr and Mrs
Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
2
|
|
66
|
6/12/04
|
Provision of draft business plan for discussion in upcoming
meeting
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
26
|
|
67
|
7/12/04
|
Comments for consideration at pending meeting with Greg Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
2
|
|
68
|
17/01/05
|
Response to request for advice
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
5
|
|
69
|
18/01/05
|
List of questions regarding Defra grant application
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
70
|
18/01/05
|
Confirmation receipt of previous email
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Phillip De Figueiredo
|
2
|
|
71
|
20/01/05
|
Request for contact
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
72
|
20/01/05
|
Comment on earlier conversations
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
1
|
|
73
|
21/01/05
|
Confirmation of intention not to proceed with Defra submission
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mark Shelton
|
3
|
|
74
|
27/01/05
|
On forwarding of received facsimiles and confirmation of upcoming
meeting
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
75
|
1/02/05
|
Outline of proposed development of holiday accommodation at Rock Head Farm,
Glaisdale
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
76
|
9/02/05
|
Email attaching Baker Tilly document (see above)
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Strachans
|
1
|
|
77
|
25/02/05
|
Note of meeting between Mr Calder and Mr and Mrs Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
78
|
3/03/05
|
Letter enclosing account detailing legal services provided between 4 March
2004 and 25 February 2005
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Barnes Development Pty Ltd
|
4
|
|
79
|
15/06/05
|
Instructions to solicitor
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
|
|
‘SCHEDULE B’
|
|
|
|
80
|
3/03/05
|
Letter enclosing account detailing legal services provided between 4 March
2004 and 25 February 2005
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Barnes Development Pty Ltd
|
4
|
|
81
|
15/06/05
|
Instructions to solicitor
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
1
|
|
82
|
15/06/05
|
Request from solicitor to secretary to open new file
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Sheila Vink
|
1
|
|
|
|
"LETTER DATED 22 DECEMBER 2005"
|
|
|
|
83
|
Undated
|
Resignation signed by Phillip Egglishaw
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Roker Trustees (Jersey) Limited
|
|
|
84
|
Undated
|
Appointment signed by Phillip Egglishaw
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
|
|
85
|
|
Bundle of Standard Chartered Bank Statements from Jilette Company Limited
for the period 29 October 1997 to 24 September 1998
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
56
|
|
86
|
Undated
|
Sanderstead Limited receipts and payment schedule comprising two pages
covering the period 24 October 1997 to 2 July 1998 and two
pages covering the
period 24 October 1997 to 29 September 1998
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
|
|
87
|
Undated
|
Sanderstead schedule of fees
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
88
|
|
Receipts and payment schedule comprising one page for the period 16
September 1997 to 30 September 1997, one page covering the period
1 October 1997
to 2 July 1998 and 1 page covering the period 1 October 1997 to 29 September
1998
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
|
|
89
|
Undated
|
Pantheon Trust schedule of fees
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
1
|
|
90
|
Undated
|
Net assets statement/current value
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
NA
|
9
|
|
91
|
11/09/96
|
Facsimile from Mr & Mrs Barnes to Paul Tayler together with a letter
from Eversheds to Alan Woods
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Paul Tayler
|
3
|
|
92
|
7/02/97
|
Letter from John Barnes to Paul
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Paul Tayler
|
1
|
|
93
|
10/06/97
|
Telefax from Strachans to Greg Calder with enclosure
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
3
|
|
94
|
20/06/97
|
Deed of Indemnity
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
|
4
|
|
95
|
20/06/97
|
Telefax from Strachans to Greg Calder with enclosure
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
2
|
|
96
|
15/09/97
|
Letter and fee note from Strachans to Mr and Mrs Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr & Mrs Barnes
|
3
|
|
97
|
14/10/97
|
Two letters from Cooper Parry to Mr and Mrs Barnes enclosing receipts and
payment schedule in respect of the Pantheon Trust
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr & Mrs Barnes
|
3
|
|
98
|
23/10/97
|
Letter from John Barnes to Steve Dosdale together with the enclosures
referred to therein
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Steve Dosdale
|
5
|
|
99
|
29/12/97
|
Letter, fee note and detailed fee note from Strachans to Mr and Mrs
Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr & Mrs Barnes
|
8
|
|
100
|
9/01/98
|
Letter enclosing Insurance Certificate, Schedule and Policy wording from
Sanderstead Limited to Greg Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
11
|
|
101
|
31/03/98
|
Letter from Strachans to Greg Calder with fee notes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
10
|
|
102
|
12/07/98
|
Strachans fee notes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
5
|
|
103
|
16/09/98
|
Letter from Strachans to Greg Calder with fee notes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
|
|
104
|
30/09/98
|
Letter from Quilter & Co to Phillip Egglishaw enclosing current
valuations
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Phillip Egglishaw
|
14
|
|
105
|
20/10/98
|
Letter from Strachans to Greg Calder enclosing a copy of their fee
note
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
5
|
|
106
|
22/12/98
|
Letter and fee note from Strachans to Mr and Mrs Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Mr & Mrs Barnes
|
7
|
|
107
|
17/10/03
|
Telefax from Strachans to John Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
John Barnes
|
2
|
|
108
|
19/12/03
|
Telefax from Phillip de Figueredo to Greg Calder
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
2
|
|
109
|
12/01/04
|
Letter from John Barnes to Phillip Egglishaw
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Phillip Egglishaw
|
1
|
|
110
|
19/11/04
|
Email from John Barnes to Sam cc to Mark Shelton
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Sam Lawson
|
1
|
|
111
|
7/12/04
|
Telefax from Strachans to Greg Calder enclosing facsimile from Strachans to
John Barnes
Claim rejected: no evidence of dominant purpose of creation of copy |
Greg Calder
|
3
|
A/Associate:
Dated: 9 January
2007
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
9 January 2007
|
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/3.html