A party who gives evidence at trial about the substance or effect of their solicitor's advice — even in general terms — in order to explain away a document adverse to their case, acts inconsistently with the maintenance of legal professional privilege and waives it, thereby exposing themselves to a Jones v Dunkel inference from the failure to call the solicitor. A primary judge who fails to subject documentary evidence capable of containing admissions adverse to a party's interests to proper analysis, including consideration of Jones v Dunkel inferences and credibility implications, commits an error in the process of fact-finding warranting a new trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.