District Council of Mallala v Livestock Markets Limited

(2006) 94 SASR 258; [2006] SASC 80

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Settlement negotiation privilege
4. › Communication made in connection with attempt to negotiate settlement
5. › Whether letter comprising both disclosure of investigation findings and settlement proposal was a single communication within s 67C(1)
6. › Whether s 67C(2)(c) exception for part-disclosure applied
7. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 67C
1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Legal professional privilege
4. › Litigation privilege
5. › Investigation report prepared for dominant purpose of litigation
6. › Sufficiency of evidence to support claim for privilege
7. › Court's discretion to inspect document
8. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA)
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Report from an expert
4. › Whether investigation report by former police officer constituted expert report
5. › Distinction between investigator and expert
6. › Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, r 69
7. › Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), s 49(1)(ca)

Quick Take

Section 67C(1) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) is not to be read narrowly; a communication that serves both the purpose of disclosing information and making a settlement proposal is a single communication made in connection with settlement negotiations and is protected in its entirety. The exception in s 67C(2)(c) for part-disclosure requires disclosure to a third party beyond the parties to the dispute; sending the settlement letter to the opposing party does not itself constitute disclosure triggering the exception. An investigation report by a former police officer experienced in fraud investigations, which collects material of potential evidential use but does not express opinions based on specialised knowledge, is not an expert report required to be disclosed under r 69 of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules.