NSW v Betfair Pty Ltd

(2009) 180 FCR 543; [2009] FCAFC 160

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Legal professional privilege
4. › Legal advice privilege
5. › Communications with Parliamentary Counsel
6. › Whether provision of draft legislation constitutes legal advice
7. › Whether drafting instructions constitute communications for dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice
1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Legal professional privilege
4. › Legal advice privilege
5. › Scope of privilege
6. › Communications between client and third parties for purpose of formulating instructions to legal adviser
7. › Whether Pratt Holdings principle extends to communications from client to third parties
8. › Whether dominant purpose test satisfied
1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Legal professional privilege
4. › Waiver
5. › Implied waiver
6. › Inconsistency test
7. › Whether failure to impose express use restraint on privileged communications constitutes waiver
8. › Whether confidentiality regime sufficient to maintain privilege
9. › Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Leave to appeal
4. › Interlocutory decision
5. › Whether decision attended by sufficient doubt
6. › Whether substantial injustice would result if leave denied
7. › Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A)

Quick Take

Drafting instructions to Parliamentary Counsel, draft legislation, and communications within confidential consultative working groups formed to develop those instructions are all protected by legal professional privilege, and a confidentiality regime imposed on participants is sufficient to maintain privilege without a separate express use restraint.