Mccomish, James --- "Foreign Legal Privilege: A New Problem for Australian Private International Law" [2006] SydLawRw 15; (2006) 28(2) Sydney Law Review 297
- * BA(Hons), LLB (Hons), University of Melbourne. My thanks to Associate Professor Richard Garnett for his guidance and advice, and to Perry Herzfeld for commenting on an earlier draft.
[1] Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, opened
for signature 18 March 1970, 847 UNTS 231, art 11 (entered into force 7 October 1972).
[2] United States of America v McRae [1867] UKLawRpCh 113; (1867) LR 3 Ch App 79.
[3] Adsteam Building Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Cement and Lime Co Ltd (No 4) [1985] 1 Qd
R 127; F F Seeley Nominees Pty Ltd v El Ar Initiations (UK) Ltd (1990) 96 ALR 468. The position is clearer in those jurisdictions covered by the uniform evidence legislation, under which foreign offences are included within the scope of the privilege: see, eg, Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s128(1)(a). See generally Constantine Theophilopoulos, ‘The Anglo-American Privilege against Self-Incrimination and the Fear of Foreign Prosecution’ [2003] SydLawRw 14; (2003) 25 Syd LR 305.
[4] This article primarily focuses on legal professional privilege and its international equivalents, although other forms of privilege will be discussed by way of illustration or comparison. The term ‘privilege’ will be used to refer either to legal professional privilege specifically or to privilege generically, as the context makes clear.
jurisdictions. Also, terminology differs across jurisdictions, so issues that might be labelled as ‘privilege’ in Australia might well be labelled as a species of ‘confidentiality’ in Germany.
[5] James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) s4(1).
[6] Even if foreign law ought otherwise to govern questions of privilege, this enactment would apply as a mandatory rule of the forum, thus abrogating privilege in any event: see below Part 6(B).
[7] 15 USC 7245 (2002).
[8] See, for example, the submissions of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, 14 December 2002: <http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s74502/tmotobayashi121402.pdf> the Council of Bars and Law Societies of the European Union: <http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s74502/ ccberesponse.htm> and the combined submission of Allen & Overy, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith, Linklaters, Lovells, and Norton Rose, 17 December 2002: <http:// www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s74502/allenfresh1.htm> . The final rule is Securities and Exchange Commission, Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys – 17 CFR pt 205: <http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33 – 8185.htm> .
[9] Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s155; Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss19, 58.
[10] See, for example, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s3E; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s465; Search Warrants Act 1985 (NSW) s6.
[11] See, for example, Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s263(1).
[12] On the ‘dominant purpose’ test, see Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49. See also Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 213 CLR 543 at 563 (McHugh J) (hereafter Daniels Corporation).
[13] Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 at 85 (Murphy J).
[14] See, for example, Baker v Campbell, id (search warrants); Daniels Corporation, n12 (investigations under s155 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)).
[15] Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 685.
[16] Baker v Campbell, above n13 at 128 (Dawson J).
[17] Id at 94 (Wilson J).
[18] Id at 120.
[19] Id at 89 (Murphy J), 95 (Wilson J).
[20] Id at 86 (Murphy J), 123 (Dawson J).
[21] R v Bell; Ex parte Lees [1980] HCA 26; (1980) 146 CLR 141 at 156 (Stephen J). See also Attorney-General (NT)
v Kearney [1985] HCA 60; (1985) 158 CLR 500 at 515 (Gibbs CJ).
[22] Wheeler v Le Marchant [1881] UKLawRpCh 106; (1881) 17 Ch D 675.
[23] Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 122; (2004) 207 ALR 217.
[24] Hughes v Biddulph [1827] EngR 840; (1827) 4 Russ 190; 38 ER 777.
[25] Attorney–General (NT) v Kearney, above n21 at 510 (Gibbs CJ). For example, legal advice given by a legally-trained accountant was not privileged, because the accountant was not admitted as a legal practitioner: Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2001] QCA 115; [2002] 1 Qd R 233 (hereafter Glengallan Investments). Privilege does apply, though, to non-lawyers working under the supervision of legal practitioners admitted to practice: see for example, Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25; (1987) 163 CLR 54 at 81 (Deane J); Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2001] QCA 115; [2002] 1 Qd R 233 at 247 (Williams JA).
[26] Commonwealth v Vance [2005] ACTCA 35. The case concerned lawyers employed by the Defence Legal Office who were admitted to practice, but did not hold practising certificates. The ACT Court of Appeal reversed Crispin J’s judgment at first instance (Vance v Air Marshall McCormack (2004) 154 ACTR 12), that the absence of practising certificates and the authoritarian command structure of the military disentitled the lawyers from claiming legal professional privilege.
[27] Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines v Customs and Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 102 at 129.
[28] Attorney–General (NT) v Kearney, above n21 at 510 (Gibbs CJ), 531 (Dawson J); Waterford v Commonwealth, above n25 at 60–62 (Mason and Wilson JJ), 81 (Deane J), 97 (Dawson J). Contrast Brennan J at 71–2.
[29] See, for example, Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (No 4) (1987) 14 NSWLR 100 at 102 (hereafter Ritz Hotel) (McLelland J); Re Citibank Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 516 at 519 (Williams J); Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2005] NSWCA 47 at [18] (Spigelman CJ).
[30] Waterford v Commonwealth, above n25 at 62 (Mason & Wilson JJ); Commonwealth v Vance, above n26.
[31] Daniels Corporation, above n12 at 552 (citations omitted).
[32] Id at 553.
[33] Id at 563.
[34] Id at 575 (citations omitted).
[35] Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1.
[36] Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42; (2004) 209 ALR 271 at 279 (GleesonCJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).
[37] On the admissions requirements for avocats, see Loi n° 90–1259 du 31 Décembre 1990 Portant réforme de certaines professions judiciares et juridiques, JO n° 4 du 5 Janvier 1991 p 219 (Law Reforming Certain Judicial and Legal Professions) art 9.
[38] Décret n° 91–1197 du 27 Novembre 1991 Organisant la profession d’avocat, JO n° 277 du 28
Novembre 1991 p 15502 (Decree Organising the Profession of Lawyers) art 111.
[39] Code Penal (Criminal Code) art 226–13. 40 Examples of such earlier ‘weakening’ decisions include: Cass crim, 30 sept 1991, D 1992, 323
[40] note Gavalda (purporting to exclude lawyers’ drafting and negotiation work from the scope of the privilege); Cass crim, 7 mars 1994, D 1995, somm 167, obs Brunois (narrowly construing ‘droits de la défense’). Examples of more recent ‘strengthening’ decisions include: Cass crim, 6 févr 1997, Gaz Pal 1997, 183 note Damien (reinstating a broad construction of ‘droits de la défense’); Cass 1e civ, 4 févr 2003, D 2003, inf rap 601 (re-emphasising the absence of exceptions to the privilege).
[41] ‘En toutes matières, que ce soit dans le domaine du conseil ou dans celui de la défense, les consultations adressées par un avocat à son client ou destinées à celui-ci, les correspondances échangées entre le client et son avocat, entre l'avocat et ses confrères à l'exception pour ces dernières de celles portant la mention "officielle", les notes d'entretien et, plus généralement, toutes les pièces du dossier sont couvertes par le secret professionnel’: Loi n° 71–1130 du 31 décembre 1971 Portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques, JO du 5 Janvier 1972 p 131 (Law Reforming Certain Judicial and Legal Professions) art 66–5 (amended by Loi n°2004–130 du 11 février 2004, JO n° 36 du 12 février 2004 p 2847 art 34).
[42] Cass crim, 18 déc 2001, D 2002, inf rap 862.
[43] ‘[L'obligation du secret professionnel] est absolue et … il n'appartient à personne de les en affranchir’ – Crim. 11 mai 1844. S.441.527 (the obligation of professional secrecy is absolute and is not for anyone to release).
[44] Cass com, 5 mai 1998, D 2000, somm 154.
[45] Cass crim, 16 mai 2000, D 2002, somm 858.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung v 1.8.1959 (BGBl I 1959 S 565) (Federal Lawyers Regulation) § 46(1).
[48] Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung v 1.8.1959 (BGBl I 1959 S 565) (Federal Lawyers Regulation) § 43a(1).
[49] Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung v 1.8.1959 (BGBl I 1959 S 565) (Federal Lawyers Regulation) § 43a(2); Berufsordnung für Rechtsanwälte (Regulations concerning the Legal Profession § 2.
[50] Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) §§ 203 at 300.
[51] Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung v 1.8.1959 (BGBl I 1959 S 565) (Federal Lawyers Regulation) § 43a(2).
[52] Zivilprozeßordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) § 383(1)(6); Strafprozeßordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure) § 53(1)(3).
[53] Zivilprozeßordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) § 142(2); Strafprozeßordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure) § 97.
[54] Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) § 385(2); Zivilprozeßordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) § 53(2).
[55] Berufsordnung für Rechtsanwälte (Regulations concerning the Legal Profession) § 2(3).
[56] Grundgesetz (Basic Law) art 10.
[57] Grundgesetz (Basic Law) art 13.
[58] Betriebsbetretungsrecht BVerfGE 32, 54 (1971).
[59] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953).
[60] Niemietz v Germany (1992) 351–B Eur Court HR (ser A).
[61] Codice Deontologico Forense (Code of Forensic Rules) art 9.
[62] Codice Penale (Criminal Code) art 622.
[63] Cass pen, sez VI, 21 gen 2004, n 85. This decision emphasised the stringency of the concept of ‘segreto professionale’, and extended its reach to encompass a journalist’s ability to refuse to disclose his or her sources.
[64] Regio Decreto-Legge 27 Novembre 1933, n 1578, Sull'Ordinamento della Professione di Avvocato e di Procuratore (Gazz Uff 5 dicembre 1933, n 281) (Royal Decree-Law on the Ordering of the Profession of Advocate and Procurator) art 3.
[65] Codice Deontologico Forense (Code of Forensic Rules) art 10.
[66] Codice di Procedura Civle (Code of Civil Procedure) art 249; Codice di Procedura Penale
(Code of Criminal Procedure) art 200.
[67] Codice Deontologico Forense (Code of Forensic Rules) art 9.
[68] Minpo, Law No 109 of 1996 (Code of Civil Procedure) art 220(4)(c).
[69] Minpo, Law No 109 of 1996 (Code of Civil Procedure) art 220(4)(d).
[70] Bengoshi-Ho (Law on Lawyers) Law No 205 of 1949, art 23; Minpo, above n68 art 197(1)(2).
[71] Minpo, Law No 109 of 1996 (Code of Civil Procedure) art 197(1)(3).
[72] As the reader will see, the decisions in Kennedy v Wallace (at trial [2004] FCA 332; (2004) 208 ALR 424, and on
appeal [2004] FCAFC 337; (2004) 213 ALR 108) make it important to discuss Swiss law in some detail. See below
Part 4(B).
[73] Constitution Fédérale de la Confédération Suisse art 13.
[74] ‘[D]iese Berufe nur dann richtig und einwandfrei ausgeübt werden können, wenn das Publikum
auf Grund einer unbedingten Garantie der Verschwiegenheit das unentbehrliche Vertrauen zum Inhaber des Berufes hat’: BGE 112 Ib 606, 606.
[75] ‘Wenn der Klient sich ihm nicht rückhaltslos anvertraut und ihm nicht Einblick in alle erheblichen Verhältnisse gewährt, so ist es für den Anwalt schwer, ja unmöglich, den Klienten richtig zu beraten und ihn im Prozess wirksam zu vertreten’: BGE 112 Ib 606, 606–7. Compare the judgment of Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ in Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 685: ‘(Legal professional privilege) promotes the public interest because it assists and enhances the administration of justice by facilitating the representation of clients by legal advisers …. This it does by keeping secret their communications, thereby inducing the client to retain the solicitor and seek his advice, and encouraging the client to make a full and frank disclosure of the relevant circumstances to the solicitor.’
[76] Loi fédérale sur la libre circulation des avocats du 23 juin 2000 RS 935.61 (Federal Law on the Free Circulation of Lawyers) art 12(b): ‘[l’avocat] exerce son activité professionnelle en toute indépendance, en son nom personnel et sous sa propre responsabilité’ [the lawyer engages in his professional activity in complete independence, in his own name, and under his own responsibility].
[77] Loi fédérale sur la libre circulation des avocats du 23 juin 2000 RS 935.61 [Federal Law on the Free Circulation of Lawyers] arts 8(1)(d), 8(2).
[78] ‘Die Unabhängigkeit des Anwalts soll grösstmögliche Freiheit und Sachlichkeit bei der Interessenwahrung gegenüber dem Klienten wie gegenüber dem Richter gewährleisten. Sie bildet die Voraussetzung für das Vertrauen in den Anwalt und die Justiz…. Darüber hinaus dient die Unabhängigkeit des Anwaltes der Sicherstellung, dass die anwaltlichen Berufspflichten, insbesondere das Anwaltsgeheimnis, eingehalten werden. … Zudem stellt das Anwaltsgeheimnis im Rechtssystem eine Besonderheit dar, das dem registrierten Anwalt im Hinblick auf seine ausserordentliche Stellung in der Rechtspflege eingeräumt wird. Dem stehen Standespflichten gegenüber, denen der Anwalt nur vollumfänglich nachkommen kann, wenn er vom Mandanten und von Dritten unabhängig ist’. Bundesgericht 2P.187/2000 8 Januar 2001, Pra 90/2001 Nr 141 S 835.
[79] Code pénal suisse du 21 décembre 1937 RS 311.0 (Swiss Criminal Code) art 321.
[80] Loi fédérale de procédure civile fédérale du 4 décembre 1947 RS 273 (Federal Law on Federal Civil Procedure) art 42; Loi fédérale sur la procédure pénale du 15 juin 1934 RS 312.0 (Federal Law on Criminal Procedure]) art 77.
[81] Loi fédérale sur la procédure pénale du 15 juin 1934 RS 312.0 (Federal Law on Criminal Procedure) art 69.
[82] BGE 112 Ib 606 at 607.
[83] DTF 87 IV 105 at 107.
[84] Loi fédérale sur la libre circulation des avocats du 23 juin 2000 RS 935.61 (Federal Law on the Free Circulation of Lawyers) art 13: ‘Le fait d’être délié du secret professionnel n’oblige pas l’avocat à divulguer des faits qui lui ont été confiés’. [Being released from professional secrecy does not oblige the lawyer to reveal the facts that were confided in him].
[85] See, for example, Canton of Zürich, Anwaltsgesetz vom 17 November 2003 (OS Zürich Bd 59 S 144) arts 33–5; Canton of Geneva, Loi sur la profession d'avocat du 26 avril 2002 (RSG E 6 10) art 12.
[86] BGE 112 Ib 606. The same is true of other professions, such as doctors: BGE 101 Ia 10 at 11–12.
[87] ‘[Das Berufsgeheimnis] nur auf Tatsachen, die der Klient seinem Anwalt anvertraut, um ihm die Ausübung des Mandates zu ermöglichen, oder die der Anwalt in Ausübung seines Berufes wahrnimmt. … Auf der andern Seite ist der Anwalt nicht zur Verschwiegenheit bezüglich solcher Tatsachen gehalten, die er als Privatperson wahrgenommen hat oder die allgemein bekannt sind, so dass der Klient zum vornherein kein Interesse haben kann, sie gegenüber irgendwem geheimzuhalten’: BGE 112 Ib 606 at 607.
[88] ‘Überwiegt … das kaufmännische Element derart, dass die Tätigkeit des Anwalts nicht mehr als eine anwaltliche betrachtet werden kann, kann sich das Berufsgeheimnis auf diese Tätigkeit jedenfalls nicht in einem umfassenden Sinn erstrecken’: BGE 112 Ib 606 at 608.
[89] BGE 112 Ib 606 at 609. Exceptions obviously include such matters as administration of deceased estates, distribution of marital property upon divorce, liquidations and the like.
[90] A M & S Europe Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (C-155/79) [1982] EUECJ C-155/79; [1982] ECR 1575
at 1611.
[91] Id at 1611–12.
[92] In Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Joined Cases T-
[1225] /03 R and T-253/03 R) (Court of First Instance, 30 October 2003) the President of the Court of First Instance granted interim relief against the seizure of documents prepared by, or for the use of, in-house counsel. On appeal, however, the European Court of Justice overturned the grant of interim relief on procedural grounds, and did not address the merits of the privilege issue: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission (C-7/04 P(R)1) (European Court of Justice, 27 September 2004).
[93] Hickman v Taylor, [1947] USSC 5; 329 US 495 (1947).
[94] At the federal level, see Upjohn Co v United States [1981] USSC 7; 449 US 383 (1981). At the state level, see, for example, Exxon Corporation v Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 859 So 2d 1096 (Ala 2002); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v Superior Court, 54 Cal App 4th 625 (Ct App 1997), 639; Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater New York 542 NYS 2d 508 (1989).
[95] See, for example, Arizona: ARIZ REV STAT § 12-2234(B); Colorado: COLO REV STAT § 13-90-107(b); Florida: FLA STAT § 90.502.
[96] Consolidated Coal v Bucyrus-Erie Co, 89 Ill 2d 103; 432 NE 2d 250 (1982).
[97] Hubka v Pennfield Township 197 Mich App 117; 494 NW 2d 800 (Ct App 1992).
[98] New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct r 1.13.
[99] Upjohn Co v United States, above n94.
[100] Samaritan Foundation v Goodfarb, 176 Ariz 497; 862 P 2d 870 (1993).
[101] Shriver v Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co Inc 145 FRD 112, 114 (D Colo 1992).
[102] Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater New York, 542 NYS 2d 508 (1989).
[103] Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co v Deason, 632 So 2d 1377, 1383 (McDonald J) (Fla 1994).
[104] Daniels Corp, above n12.
[105] Descoteaux v Mierzwinski [1982] 1 SCR 860.
[106] [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503.
[107] See the discussion of the supposed distinction by Mason CJ in McKain v R W Miller & Co (SA)
Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 56; (1991) 174 CLR 1 at 18–27. This was a distinction of which his Honour (then in dissent) disapproved.
[108] John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503, 543 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ).
[109] McKain v R W Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 56; (1991) 174 CLR 1 at 26–7 (Mason CJ).
[110] Peter Nygh & Martin Davies, Conflict of Laws in Australia (7th ed, 2002) at 311 (hereafter Nygh & Davies).
[111] Id at 303.
[112] Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022 at 1072 (La Forest J).
[113] Baker v Campbell, above n13.
[114] Republic Gear v Borg-Warner Corporation[1967] USCA2 153; , 381 F 2d 551 (2nd Cir 1967).
[115] Lawrence Collins (ed), Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th ed, 2000) at 162 (hereafter Dicey and Morris). Indeed, the 6th edition of this work (the first edited by Morris) ascribed ‘the whole law of evidence’ to the category of procedure: J H C Morris (ed), Dicey’s Conflict of Laws (6th ed, 1949) at 860. The chapter on procedure was written by Zelman Cowen.
[116] Mahadervan v Mahadervan [1964] P 233 at 243 (Simon P).
[117] Ibid.
[118] Jack Weinstein, ‘Recognition in the United States of the Privileges of Another Jurisdiction’ (1956) 56 Colum L Rev 535 at 541.
[119] Ibid.
[120] Richard Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts: Pleading, Proof and Choice of Law (1998) at 41.
[121] There does not seem to be any well-known foreign legal system in which this possibility arises. For example, Canada and the United States classify privilege as substantive, and most European civil law countries treat questions of evidence and admissibility as a matter of substance and not procedure: see V Bellini, ‘Evidence in Comparative Private International Law’ (1951-1953) 2 UWALR 330 at 330–1.
[122] Even leading texts like P M North & J J Fawcett, Cheshire and North’s Private International Law (12th ed, 1992) (hereafter Cheshire and North) and Nygh & Davies, above n110, make no mention of the issue at all.
[123] See Dicey and Morris, above n115 at 166; J-G Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws (2nd ed, 1986) at 121.
[124] Bain v Whitehaven & Furness Railway Co [1850] EngR 670; (1850) 3 HL Cas 1 at 19 (Brougham LJ).
[125] Joseph H Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1935) vol 3 at 1614.
[126] It is only Lawrence Collins (ed), Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws: Second Supplement to the Thirteenth Edition (2002) at 9 (hereafter Dicey and Morris Supplement) that mentions any case law at all, namely Bourns Inc v Raychem Corp [1999] 3 All ER 154.
[127] See, for example, Doll v Equitable Life Assurance Society 138 F 705 (3rd Cir 1905) (a New Jersey court refusing to apply New York law of doctor–patient privilege); Jones v Jones 144 NYS 2d 820 (Sup Ct 1955) (a New York court refusing to apply French law which supposedly lacked doctor–patient privilege).
[128] 149 Miss 455 at 458; 115 So 555 at 557 (Hall J) (1928).
[129] Wexler v Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 38 NYS 2d 889 (Sup Ct 1942).
[130] Abety v Abety, 77 A 2d 291 (NJ Ct Ch, 1950) (applying New Jersey law, which did not recognise New York doctor–patient privilege).
[131] Bourns Inc v Raychem Corp [1999] 3 All ER 154 at 167–8 (Aldous LJ).
[132] Dicey and Morris Supplement, above n126 at 9.
[133] See Bourns Inc v Raychem Corp, above n131 at 167 (Aldous LJ).
[134] Id at 168 (Aldous LJ).
[135] But see Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCA 332; (2004) 208 ALR 424 (hereafter Kennedy v Wallace) and Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2004] FCA 1131; (2004) 210 ALR 593 (hereafter Arrow Pharmaceuticals), both discussed below, which address the issue tangentially and incompletely.
[136] [1839] EngR 1036; (1839) 2 Beav 173; 48 ER 1146.
[137] Id at 1147.
[138] [1872] UKLawRpEq 135; (1872) LR 14 Eq 580 (Wickens V-C).
[139] [1859] EngR 385; (1859) 4 Drew 485; 62 ER 186.
[140] Id at 188 (Kindersley V-C). Note also Wheeler v Le Marchant [1881] UKLawRpCh 106; (1881) 17 Ch D 675 at 679, in which Brett LJ remarked with regard to privilege that ‘Scotch legal advisers stand on the same footing as English legal advisers’.
[141] Id at 188 (Kindersley V-C).
[142] Re Duncan (dec’d); Garfield v Fay [1968] P 306 (Ormrod J) (hereafter Re Duncan); Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co [1981] 2 All ER 485 at 490 (Templeman LJ) (the case actually concerned the waiver of privilege over advice prepared by American lawyers); International Business Machines Corp v Phoenix International (Computers) Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 413 at 429 (Aldous J).
[143] Re Duncan, id at 311.
[144] Counsel had invited his Lordship to apply the ‘municipal law of the forum of the foreign lawyer’ to any question of privilege: Re Duncan (dec’d), above n142 at 311. This submission was rejected.
[145] Ritz Hotel, above n29 at 102.
[146] [1993] FCA 501; (1993) 45 FCR 445 at 455 (Northrop, Ryan & Beazley JJ) (hereafter Grofam).
[147] Kennedy v Wallace trial, above n135.
[148] Id at 427.
[149] Id at 431. See above Part 2(F) of this article on the Swiss law relating to lawyers’ involvement in management and investment activities. This law was not referred to in Kennedy v Wallace.
[150] Id at 438.
Furthermore, such a proposition is inconsistent with the rationale for legal professional privilege.[151]
[151] Id at 439.
[152] Id at 440.
[153] Id at 441.
[154] Ibid.
[155] Id at 427, 432–3, 441.
[156] Id at 445.
[157] Id at 446.
[158] Id at 447.
[159] Kennedy lost both at trial an on appeal, because he did not establish on the facts that his notes were made for the dominant purpose of receiving legal advice.
[160] Kennedy v Wallace [2004] FCAFC 337; (2004) 213 ALR 108 at 142-3 (Allsop J) (hereafter Kennedy v Wallace appeal). The Full Federal Court authority was Grofam, above n146.
[161] Daniels Corporation, above n12.
[162] Kennedy v Wallace appeal, above n160.
[163] Ibid.
[164] Ibid.
[165] Ibid.
[166] Id at 142.
[167] Id at 142–3.
[168] Id at 144.
[169] Above n136.
[170] Above n138.
[171] Above n139.
[172] Above n142.
[173] Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s200(2).
[174] [2004] FCA 850; (2004) 137 FCR 573 at 575; [2004] FCA 850; 61 IPR 292 at 293 (hereafter Eli Lilly).
[175] Id at 294.
[176] Ibid.
[177] Wilden Pump & Engineering Co v Fusfeld (1984) 3 IPR 104; [1985] FSR 159.
[178] Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney, above n21 at 510 (Gibbs CJ); Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen, above n25.
[179] Kennedy v Wallace appeal, above n160 (Allsop J).
[180] This is especially so the case if privilege can be claimed where the patent attorney is also an
admitted lawyer: Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd, above n135.
[181] Cheshire and North, above n122 at 75.
[182] Id at 78.
[183] Dicey and Morris, above n115 at 158.
[184] Id at 157.
[185] Nygh & Davies, above n110 at 311.
[186] See Kennedy v Wallace trial, above n135 at 427 (Gyles J): ’It has been admitted for the purposesof this proceeding that Hafner was a qualified Swiss lawyer. No evidence has been led from Hafner or anybody else as to the nature of his practice, as to the work that he actually does or as to how lawyers in Switzerland are organised, controlled or disciplined. No evidence has been led as to whether legal professional privilege is a concept known to Swiss law or, if so, as to how and in what circumstances it operates under the law of that jurisdiction.’
[187] Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492.
[188] Kennedy v Wallace appeal, above n160 at 143 (Allsop J).
[189] United States of America v McRae, above n2.
[190] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s128; Adsteam Building Industries Pty Ltd v Queensland Cement and
Lime Co Ltd (No 4), above n3. Contrast F F Seeley Nominees Pty Ltd v El Ar Initiations (UK) Ltd, above n3. See generally Theophilopoulos, above n3 at 322, in which the author advocates that the privilege ought to apply to offences under foreign law, but only if the jeopardy under foreign law is near certain and not merely speculative or potential.
[191] United States of America v McRae, above n2 (Chelmsford LC).
[192] Ibid.
[193] [1859] EngR 385; (1859) 4 Drew 485 at 490-1; [1859] EngR 385; 62 ER 186 at 188 (Kindersley V-C).
[194] Arrow Pharmaceuticals, above n135.
[195] Re Spalding Sports Worldwide Inc, [2000] USCAFED 19; 203 F 3d 800 (Fed Cir, 2000).
[196] Arrow Pharmaceuticals, above n135 at 597.
[197] Arrow Pharmaceuticals was decided on 1 September 2004, and the appeal in Kennedy v Wallace
was decided on 23 December 2004, so it is not as if Gyles J were humbled by being reversed on appeal. One can only speculate that he might have caught wind of what was coming through gossip around the judicial watercooler.
[198] See Nygh and Davies, above n110 at 27.
[199] Weinstein, above n118 at 539.
[200] Beale, above n125, vol 3, at 1600.
[201] Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 139.
[202] Restatement (First) Conflict of Laws § 597.
[203] Kurt Riechenberg, ‘The Recognition of Foreign Privileges in United States Discovery
[204] Mitsui & Co (USA) Inc v Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority 79 FRD 72, 77 (Toledo J) (D Puerto Rico 1978).
[205] See, for example, Stewart Sterk, ‘Testimonial Privileges: An Analysis of Horizontal Choice of Law Problems’ (1977) 61 Minn LR 461 at 469: ‘To the extent that different privileges protect fundamentally different interests, it is inappropriate to treat them uniformly for choice of law purposes’.
[206] Ibid; Willis Reese & Barry Leiwant, ‘Testimonial Privileges and Conflict of Laws’ (1977) 41 Law and Contemporary Problems 85 at 87–90.
[207] Nevertheless, using such a procedural characterisation to apply the lex fori occurred in Doll v Equitable Life Assurance Society 138 F 705 (3rd Cir, 1905); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co v McSwain 149 Miss 455, 115 So 555 (1928); Jones v Jones 144 NYS 2d 820 (Sup Ct, 1955).
[208] Société Internationale pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales v Brownell 225 F 2d 532 (DC Cir, 1955).
[209] 38 NYS 2d 889, 890 (Parella J) (Sup Ct, 1942).
[210] Re Franklin Washington Trust Co 148 NYS 2d 731, 733 (Steuer J) (Sup Ct, 1956).
[211] Palmer v Fisher, [1955] USCA7 243; 228 F 2d 603, 608 (Swaim J) (7th Cr, 1955).
[212] Webster v Columbia National Life Insurance Co 116 NYS 404, 408 (Houghton J) (App Div 1909); aff’d 196 NY 523 (1909). What made the case all the more extraordinary was that all the facts in the case related to the conduct of Massachusetts residents in Massachusetts, with only a coincidental connection to New York.
[213] 56 NYS 2d 32 (Sup Ct, 1945). The evidence was privileged in New York, but not in Georgia. Contrast Levy v Mutual Life Insurance Co 138 F 705 (3rd Cir, 1905) rejecting the proper law as a basis for applying a foreign law of privilege (however, this rejection relied on a characterisation of privilege as a matter of substance and not procedure).
[214] Mitsui, above n204 at 79 (Toledo J).
[215] 233 F Supp 465 (SDNY, 1964) (hereafter Cepeda).
[216] Id at 470.
[217] Id at 471.
[218] Ibid (Tenney J). ‘To apply the law of New York merely because of the fortuitous circumstance
that it happens to be the place of the taking of the deposition, would merely encourage ‘forumshopping’ in the sense of attempting to take a deposition in a state which does not recognize the privilege’.
[219] R & J Dick Co v Bass, 295 F Supp 758 (ND Ga, 1968).
[220] Woelfling v Great-West Life Assurance Co, 285 NE 2d 61 (Ohio Ct App, 1972).
[221] Obviously, Cepeda was a New York decision, but it also makes intuitive sense that as a busy
and well-regarded jurisdiction, New York courts are more likely to encounter out-of-state parties than, say, the courts of Arkansas.
[222] Mazzella v Philadelphia Newspapers Inc, 479 F Supp 523 (EDNY, 1979).
[223] Baker v F & F Investment 339 F Supp 942 (SDNY, 1972).
[224] First Interstate Credit Alliance Inc v Arthur Andersen & Co 542 NYS 2d 901 (Sup Ct, 1988).
[225] [1972] USCA5 220; 455 F 2d 337 (5th Cir, 1972). See also Brandman v Cross & Brown Co 479 NYS 2d 435 (Sup Ct, 1984).
[226] Duplan Corp v Deering Miliken Inc, 397 F Supp 1146 (DSC, 1974); Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation 81 FRD 377, 391 (Richey J) (DDC, 1978), 391; Golden Trade SrL v Lee Apparel Co 143 FRD 514, 519 (Dolinger MJ) (SDNY, 1992), 519; Stryker Corp v Intermedics Orthopedics Inc 145 FRD 298, 306–7 (Orenstein J) (EDNY, 1992). See generally, Daiske Yoshida, ‘The Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Communications with Foreign Legal Professionals’ (1997) 66 Fordham LR 209.
[227] Jones v Jones, above n207 (concerning the supposed absence of French doctor–patient privilege); Davidson v Great National Life Insurance Co, 737 SW 2d 312 (Tex, 1987) (concerning a claim for supposed Israeli privilege not to reveal details of ongoing criminal investigations). The cases on foreign patent attorneys also fall into this category.
[228] Société Internationale v Rogers, [1958] USSC 122; 357 US 197 (1958).
[229] Riechenberg, above n203 at 85–7.
[230] 192 F Supp 817, 818–19 (SDNY, 1961).
[231] Ings v Ferguson [1960] USCA2 471; 282 F 2d 149 (2nd Cir,1960).
[232] Re Chase Manhattan Bank 192 F Supp 817 (SDNY, 1961).
[233] Re Equitable Plan Co 185 F Supp 57 (SDNY, 1960).
[234] United States v First National City Bank [1968] USCA2 396; 396 F 2d 897, 901 (Kaufman J) (2nd Cir, 1968).
[235] [1972] USCA2 421; 469 F 2d 35 (2nd Cir, 1972).
[236] [1968] USCA2 396; 396 F 2d 897, 904 (Kaufman J) (2nd Cir, 1968).
[237] Id at 901 (Kaufman J).
[238] Yoshida, above n226 at 230.
[239] Indeed, to the extent that there are public interests at work, these most often seem to relate to the need to do justice inter partes.
[240] Steven Bradford, ‘Conflict of Laws and the Attorney–Client Privilege: A Territorial Solution’ (1991) 52 U Pitt L Rev 909 at 931.
[241] Yoshida, above n226 at 235.
[242] For a particularly egregious example of this sort of fatuous reasoning, see Reese and Leiwant, above n206.
[243] Riechenberg, above n203 at 125.
[244] Bradford, above n240 at 931.
[245] Levy v Mutual Life Insurance Co 56 NYS 2d 32 (Sup Ct, 1945).
[246] Doll v Equitable Life Assurance Society, above n207.
[247] Abety v Abety 77 A 2d 291 (NJ Ct Ch, 1950); Société Internationale v McGranery 111 F Supp
[435] (DDC, 1953).
[248] Cepeda v Cohane, above n215.
[249] Wexler v Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, above n209; Jones v Jones, above n207.
[250] Levy v Mutual Life Insurance Co, above n245.
[251] Beale, above n125 at 1601.
[252] Bradford, above n240 at 936.
[253] [1835] EngR 842; (1835) 2 Bing NC 202 at 210; [1835] EngR 842; 132 ER 80 at 83.
[254] Compare Raulin v Fischer [1911] UKLawRpKQB 18; [1911] 2 KB 93.
[255] Compare Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd v Spanish Polish Shipping Co Inc (The Katowice namely that (Australian) legal professional privilege is not limited to curial proceedings.
[256] This was the central point of Baker v Campbell, above n13,
[257] McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd [2002] VSC 73; rev’d British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell [2002] VSCA 197; (2002) 7 VR 524. See also United States of America v Philip Morris Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 330 concerning a letter of request from the USA to gather evidence relating to multi-jurisdictional legal advice.
[258] Advice about choice of law issues might be thought to be ‘transnational’ in a certain sense. However, the issue of choice of law is referable to the particular system of private international law under which the choice is to be made, and thus ‘choice of law advice’ is itself referable to a given system of substantive law.
[259] Arrow Pharmaceuticals, above n135.
[260] Re Spalding Sports Worldwide Inc [2000] USCAFED 19; 203 F 3d 800 (Fed Cir, 2000).
[261] See, for example, Upjohn Co v United States, above n94.
[262] The Albaforth [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91; Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR
[263] Albert Ehrenzweig, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1962) at 356.
[264] Ibid.
[265] Hereafter Restatement (Second).
[266] Namely, that if the communication is not privileged under the law with the ‘most significant relationship with the communication’, it should be admitted into evidence notwithstanding that the forum recognises a privilege.
[267] Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 139 cmt c.
[268] Mitsui, above n204 at 79 (Toledo J).
[269] Geraghty v Minister for Local Government [1975] IR 300.
[270] A M & S Europe Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, above n90. One imagines that
in reality, Kylie would have consulted external lawyers for advice, to avoid this very problem regarding European Union in-house counsel.
[271] In addition, a party’s choice about where to establish a trust or corporate structure will also bring about a subjective choice of law, albeit indirectly.
[272] See Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539. The duty in tort does not extend beyond what is required by the terms of the retainer: see Heydon v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWCA 374; (2001) 51 NSWLR 1.
[273] Perhaps it would be more accurate to talk of a surprising lack of relationship; after all, English law is quite often chosen by parties to govern contracts not otherwise related to England. However, such ‘surprise’ should also be seen in light of the fact that documents will most often be sought to be discovered by parties who are not privy to the contract of retainer, and who had thus not chosen to be bound by the particular ‘surprising’ law.
[274] Compare Baker v Campbell, above n13; Hickman v Taylor [1947] USSC 5; 329 US 495, 510 (Murphy J) (1947); Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines v Customs and Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 102 at 129 (Lord Denning MR).
[275] Bradford, above n240 at 948.
[276] This was a problem with applying the lex causae when local lawyers give advice on foreign law.
[277] Again, a problem with the lex causae rule.
[278] A problem with the ‘law of the place of communication’ rule.
[279] A problem with the ‘law about which advice was sought’ rule. This is still a problem if the lawyer is admitted in multiple jurisdictions, see below.
[280] A problem with the ‘law upon which the parties relied’ rule.
[281] A problem with the ‘law governing the retainer’ rule.
[282] Arrow Pharmaceuticals, above n135.
[283] Contrast Bradford, above n240 at 952, where the author proposes a rule that the weakest law of privilege apply to a client with lawyers simultaneously acting on the same matter in multiple jurisdictions. With the greatest respect, this proposed rule seems both implausible and unnecessary.
[284] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49.
[285] Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501.
[286] Loi fédérale sur la libre circulation des avocats du 23 juin 2000, RS 935.61 (Federal Law on the Free Circulation of Lawyers).
[287] However, the law of professional secrecy is administered at a cantonal level by cantonal institutions. See, in Hafner’s case, Anwaltsgesetz vom 17 November 2003 (OS Zürich Bd 59 S 144) arts 33–35. See also art 8, preserving the operation of Federal law.
[288] Above Part 2(F).
[289] Loi fédérale sur la procédure pénale RS 312.0 (Federal Law on Criminal Procedure) art 69.
[290] BGE 112 Ib 606 at 608.
[291] Kennedy v Wallace trial, above n135 at 431 (Gyles J).
[292] BGE 112 Ib 606 at 608.
[293] The contrast is between a test in which privilege applies only if the legal purpose is dominant (Australia) and in which privilege applies unless the commercial purpose is dominant (Switzerland).
[294] Guinness v Miller 300 F 769, 770 (SDNY, 1923). In the private international law context, see Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10; (2002) 210 CLR 491 at 517 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); in the constitutional context, see Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 at 573 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[295] See Jonathan Harris, ‘Tracing and the Conflict of Laws’ (2002) 73 British Yearbook of International Law 65. The difficulty in the parallel between tracing and privilege is that tracing is always ‘appurtenant’ to some cause of action or other, whereas privilege is a freestanding right which — as we have seen — can exist quite independently of any ‘substantive’ dispute.
[296] Compare the radically all-encompassing Canadian approach to the recognition of foreign judgments (Beals v Saldanha [2003] 3 SCR 416) with the more restrictive approach that applies in England (at least insofar as European law is not applicable) and Australia (Emanuel v Symon [1907] UKLawRpKQB 174; [1908] 1 KB 302).
[297] Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421 at [143].
[298] Beals, above n296 at 453 (Major J).
299 Renfield Corp v E Remy Martin & Co SA 98 FRD 442, 444 (Stapleton J) (D Del, 1982).
[300] See Baker v Campbell, above n13 at 89 (Murphy J), 95 (Wilson J), 120 (Deane J).
[301] Stern v National Australia Bank, above n297 at [143].
[302] Beals, above n296 at 453 (Major J).
[303] Loucks v Standard Oil Co of New York 224 NY 99 (1918), 111.
[304] James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) s4(1).
[305] Kennedy v Wallace trial, above n135 at 438.
[306] Ibid.
[307] Id at 446.
[308] Kennedy v Wallace appeal, above n160 at 144 (Allsop J).