Brown, Chester --- "Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation" [2000] UNSWLawJl 8; (2000) 23(1) UNSW Law Journal 173
[∗] BA (Hons) LLB (Hons) (Melb); Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Scholar, 2000; Solicitor, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Melbourne. I would like to thank Emilios Kyrou for his comments on an earlier draft of this case note. The views expressed in this case note are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Mallesons Stephen Jaques.
[†] [1999] HCA 67 (“Esso”).
[1] [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674.
[2] Note † supra. The sole purpose test has been applied in many cases: see, for example, the cases listed in S McNicol, The Law of Privilege (1992) 69, fn 150.
[3] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 118-19; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 118-19 (hereafter referred to jointly as “the Evidence Acts”).
[4] Waugh v British Railways Board [1979] UKHL 2; [1980] AC 521.
[5] Levin v Boyce [1985] 4 WWR 702; Milton Farms Ltd v Dow Chemical Canada Inc (1986) 13 CPC (2d) 174; Doiron v Embree (1987) 16 CPC (2d) 70; Ed Miller Sales & Rentals Ltd v Caterpillar Tractor Co [No 1] (1988) 22 CPR (3d) 290.
[6] Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance of New Zealand Ltd v Stuart [1985] 1 NZLR 596.
[7] Silver Hill Duckling v Minister for Agriculture [1987] IR 289.
[8] Note † supra.
[9] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 1655; (1998) 83 FCR 511.
[10] Note † supra at [6].
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] For more on the doctrine of waiver, see especially Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 at [28]- [32]; Goldberg v Ng [1995] HCA 39; (1995) 185 CLR 83; Thomason v Council of the Municipality of Campbelltown [1939] NSWStRp 10; (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 347 at 355; S McNicol, note 2 supra, pp 91-7.
[14] Note 9 supra at 514, per Black CJ and Sundberg J.
[15] Ibid at [2].
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid at 518.
[18] The Evidence Acts, note 3 supra, s 118.
[20] Note 9 supra at 518-19.
[21] Note † supra at [13].
[22] Ibid.
[24] Ibid at 279.
[25] [1998] FCA 144; (1998) 81 FCR 360 (“Adelaide”).
[26] [1998] NSWSC 254; (1998) 43 NSWLR 539. See also Towney v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for NSW [1997] FCA 656; (1997) 147 ALR 402; KC v Shiley Inc (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Tamberlin J, 11 July 1997); and DPP v Kane (unreported, New South Wales Supreme Court, Hunt CJ, 10 September 1997).
[27] Note 25 supra at 373.
[29] Ibid at 743.
[30] See, for example, Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; (1998) 192 CLR 493 at 513-15, per McHugh J, cited in Esso, note † supra at [19].
[31] See, for example, Cohen v Cohen [1929] HCA 15; (1929) 42 CLR 91 at 100, per Dixon J, cited in Esso, note † supra at [19].
[32] Note 9 supra at 524-5, per Black CJ and Sundberg J; at 546, per Merkel J; at 571-2, per Finkelstein J.
[33] Note † supra at [23].
[34] Ibid at [25].
[35] Ibid at [34].
[36] Ibid at [35].
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid at [41].
[39] Ibid at [42].
[40] Note 1 supra at 687-8.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Note † supra at [45].
[44] Ibid.
[45] Note 1 supra at 677.
[46] [1979] UKHL 2; [1980] AC 521.
[47] Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance of New Zealand Ltd v Stuart [1985] 1 NZLR 596 at 605.
[48] Note 5 supra; and note 7 supra.
[49] Note † supra at [56].
[50] Ibid at [54].
[51] Ibid at [58].
[52] Ibid.
[53] [1987] HCA 25; (1987) 163 CLR 54.
[54] Ibid at 85.
[55] Note † supra at [58].
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid at [61].
[58] Ibid at[137]-[149].
[59] Ibid at[154]-[155].
[60] Ibid at [158].
[61] JA Gobbo, D Byrne and J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (2nd ed, 1979) at [11.27].
[62] Note † supra at [163]-[165].
[63] Ibid at [166].
[64] Ibid at [65].
[65] Ibid at [71], citing Compagnie Financière du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co [1883] UKLawRpKQB 95; (1882) 11 QBD 55 at 63.
[66] Note † supra at [72], citing Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 at 583.
[67] Note † supra at [73]-[77].
[68] Ibid at [75].
[69] Ibid at [78].
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid at [79].
[72] Ibid at [83].
[73] Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1997) 188 CLR 501.
[74] Ibid at 581, cited in Esso Note † supra at [86].
[75] Note † supra at [92].
[76] Ibid at [93].
[77] Ibid at [100].
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid at [101].
[80] Ibid at [105], referring to Lipohar v The Queen [1999] HCA 65 at [193].
[81] Note † supra at [106].
[82] Ibid at [107].
[83] Ibid at [108].
[84] Ibid at [109]-[110].
[85] Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice [1986] HCA 80; (1986) 161 CLR 475 at 490.
[86] Note † supra at [111].
[87] Ibid at [113].
[88] S McNicol, note 2 supra, p 70 (footnotes omitted).
[89] Note 1 supra at 685.
[91] Ibid at 118.
[92] Ibid at 130.
[93] S McNicol, note 2 supra, p 48. Similar explanations of the privilege’s raison d’être can be found elsewhere. See, for example, the comments of Mason and Brennan JJ in Maurice, note 85 supra at 96: “The raison d’être of legal professional privilege is the furtherance of administration of justice through the fostering of trust and candour in the relationship between lawyer and client”, see also Lord Langdale MR’s formulation of the rationale in Reece v Trye [1846] EngR 483; (1846) 9 Beav 316 at 319: “The unrestricted communication between parties and their professional advisers has been considered of such importance as to make it advisable to protect it even by the concealment of matter without the discovery of which the truth of the case cannot be ascertained”; see also N Williams, “Discovery of Civil Litigation Trial Preparation Matter in Canada” (1980) 58 Canadian Bar Review 1, at 39-40; and note 9 supra at 559-60, per Finkelstein J.
[94] Note † supra at [78], per McHugh J; at [109]-[110], per Kirby J.
[95] Ibid at [93].
[96] Ibid at [75].
[97] [1998] FCA 1566; (1998) 159 ALR 647.
[98] Ibid at 653-4; see further Justice R Sackville, “Lawyer/Client Privilege” (1999) 18 Australian Bar Review 104 at 108.
[99] S McNicol, “Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation” [1999] SydLawRw 25; (1999) 21 Syd LR 656 at 665, fn 47.
[100] Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 at [29], per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ; S McNicol, note 2 supra, p 24; Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co [1981] 2 All ER 485 at 491-2.
[101] See, for example, Great Atlantic Insurance ibid.
[102] For discussion of when privilege is not lost because the third party has a ‘common interest’ with the holder of the privilege, see Buttes Gas & Oil Co v Hammer [No 3] [1981] QB 223; Optus Communications Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Lockhart J, 2 March 1995); Battery Group Ltd v FAI Insurance Co Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Hedigan J, 21 May 1993); South Australia v Peat Marwick Mitchell [1995] SASC 5261; (1995) 65 SASR 72 at 76-7; Bulk Materials (Coal Handling) Services Pty Ltd v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 689; Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1992] Lloyd’s Rep 540; Rank Film Distributors Ltd v ENT Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Tasmania, Crawford J, 25 November 1994); and Network Ten v Capital Television (1995) 36 NSWLR 275.
[103] Goldberg, note 13 supra at 95; Mann, note 100 supra at [29].
[104] Note 85 supra.
[105] Ibid at 487. See also the comments of Deane J at 492-3, affirmed by the High Court in Goldberg, note 13 supra at 95-8; BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd v Patterson (1990) 20 NSWLR 724; and Webster v James Chapman & Co [1989] 3 All ER 939 at 947, per Scott J:
The future conduct of the litigation by the other party would often be inhibited or made difficult were he to be required to undertake to shut out from his mind the contents of the document. It seems to me that it would be thoroughly unfair that the carelessness of one party should be allowed to put the other party at a disadvantage.
However, an element of ‘unfairness’ will not always necessitate a waiver of privilege: Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz (1988) 14 NSWLR 132; Bond Media v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Giles J, 7 December 1988).
[106] The Evidence Acts, note 3 supra, s 122. See generally K Smark, “Privilege under the Evidence Acts” [1995] UNSWLawJl 5; (1995) 18 UNSWLJ 95 at 100-2.
[107] Mann, note 100 supra.
[108] Ibid at [4].
[109] Goldberg, note 13 supra.
[110] Mann, note 100 supra at [30].
[111] Ibid.
[112] Ibid at [134].
[113] Ibid.
[114] Ibid.
[115] Ibid.
[116] Ibid at [140].
[117] See, for example, the authorities listed in note 102 supra.