FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Temwell Pty Ltd v DKGR Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1078 

TEMWELL PTY LTD (ACN 082 656 157)  -v-  DKGR HOLDINGS PTY LTD (formerly known as DYNAMIC DATA SYSTEMS PTY LTD) (In Liquidation) (ACN 062 778 616),  mCOM SOLUTIONS INC, DRAGON VENTURES. COM INC, mCOM SOLUTIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (In Liquidation) (ACN 091 375 950), DAVID HAINS, ROBERT VAN ZANTEN, DRAGONVENTURES.COM LTD, RICHARD HAINS  and  IAN MORRIS KIEFEL

AND

mCOM SOLUTIONS INC. and mCOM SOLUTIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (In Liquidation) (ACN 091 375 950) v  TEMWELL PTY LTD (ACN 082 656 157), SLADEMERE PTY LTD (ACN 082 656 139), SHEPRIDGE PTY LTD (ACN 082 696 077), GEOFFREY MICHAEL TAUBER, MORRY FRAID, ROGER ENRIQUEZ

V 663 of 2000

RYAN J

8 OCTOBER 2003

MELBOURNE

RULING No 10

RULING ON CLAIM OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE IN RESPECT OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON SUBPOENA BY PETER RAYNER

1                     A subpoena has been issued at the instigation of the mCom respondents to Peter Rayner an expert accounting or valuation witness who has sworn affidavits in these proceedings and whose evidence is to be relied on by the applicant (“Temwell”).  Mr Rayner has yet to be cross-examined on his affidavits.  Many of the documents which he has produced are copies of documents earlier produced by way of further discovery from the custody of Meerkin & Apel, the solicitors for Temwell, and which have been the subject of earlier rulings on claims of legal professional privilege.  (See esp. the ruling published on 9 September 2003).

2                     Although not resiling from the claims of privilege rejected in my earlier rulings, Counsel for Temwell accept that those rulings entail that the claim must also be rejected in respect of copies of the same documents or documents corresponding with them.  Accordingly, only nine of the documents produced by Mr Rayner require to be evaluated in the light of Temwell’s claim of legal professional privilege.  In examining each of those documents I have applied the principles discussed in my earlier rulings on claims of legal professional privilege, especially those of 2 and 9 September 2003.  The claim to privilege has been rejected or sustained as indicated in the Schedule attached to this ruling.

Associate:

Dated:             8 October 2003

SCHEDULE TO RULING NO 10