FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Domain Paper (Australia) Pty Ltd v Galloway [2015] FCA 406
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant’s application for production for inspection of 69 identified documents from the file of Maddocks lawyers over which the first and second respondents claim legal professional privilege is refused.
2. All parties’ costs of the application and hearing before me concerning the matter referred to in order 1 be their costs in the cause.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | VID 648 of 2012 |
BETWEEN: | DOMAIN PAPER (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 115 788 308) Applicant |
AND: | JOHN FINDLAY GALLOWAY First Respondent ELIZABETH WATSON GALLOWAY Second Respondent ANGUS GRAPHICS PTY LTD (ACN 141 731 599) Third Respondent MARK IAN GALLOWAY Fourth Respondent KIM ELIZABETH PHIPPS Fifth Respondent MADDOCKS (A FIRM) Sixth Respondent |
JUDGE: | BEACH J |
DATE: | 28 APRIL 2015 |
PLACE: | MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The interlocutory application before me, which I will treat in substance as an application by the applicant for the production for inspection of various documents contained in the file of Maddocks, concerns a challenge to a claim for legal professional privilege. The privilege claim has been made by the first and second respondents in relation to 69 documents which have been extracted from the file of Maddocks, who at one stage acted as the legal advisors to the first and second respondents. The other respondents are not parties to this application.
2 The matter has been referred to me by the docket judge, Murphy J. Given that the assessment of the privilege claim may require the Court to inspect the relevant documents from the Maddocks file, it was thought appropriate that the privilege question be referred to another judge.
3 The background to the present issue has been well summarised by his Honour in his reasons given on 28 August 2014 in relation to an earlier contest on privilege (see Domain Paper (Australia) Pty Ltd v Galloway [2014] FCA 936) in relation to the contents of the Maddocks file. I do not need to repeat that background, and the present reasons should be read in the light of the earlier reasons.
4 Suffice it to say that on 28 August 2014, his Honour formed the view that the first and second respondents’ claim to privilege had not been made out for two reasons that his Honour summarised in the following terms at [32]:
32. I have reached the view that Mr and Mrs Galloway’s claim of legal professional privilege must fail. I do so for two main reasons, namely:
(a) they failed to adduce any evidence to meet their onus to establish their claim; and
(b) the evidence adduced by Domain tends to show that, at least in respect of some important parts of the legal advice and services sought and obtained by Mr Galloway from Maddocks under file number 5637569, Mr Galloway was instructing Maddocks in his capacity as a director of Angus Agencies. At least in respect of such legal advice and legal services I am not satisfied that the documents in the Maddocks file were created or procured for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice and legal services to Mr and Mrs Galloway personally. While I accept the possibility that there may be other documents in the file which were brought into existence by Maddocks for Mr and Mrs Galloway in their personal capacity, the respondents did not identify any such documents or set out the specific ground for their claim. Again, they did not adduce any evidence to meet their onus to establish a claim of privilege in respect of such documents.
…
5 Subsequently, and for reasons that I do not need to elaborate on, his Honour permitted the issue of privilege to be reopened. On 11 September 2014, his Honour made the following order in paragraph 3 thereof:
3. By 4.00 pm on 22 September 2014, the Respondents in respect of any document dated on or after 1 September 2010 in respect of which they wish to assert a claim for privilege are to prepare a list in accordance with the requirements of r 20.17, but including therein identification of the basis on which it is asserted that the disclosure of the documents would cause substantial injustice. Such a claim to be made only in respect of documents concerning:
(a) advice in relation to threatened court proceedings by various parties including the Applicant; including advising in relation to and attending a privately arranged mediation with the Applicant, and the former Applicant Angus Agencies Pty Ltd in this proceeding in August 2011;
(b) acting as solicitors on the record for the First and Second Respondents in Victorian Magistrates Court proceeding A13472206; being proceedings commenced by Angus Agencies Pty Ltd against the First and Second Respondents; and
(c) acting as solicitors on the record for the First and Second Respondents in the District Court of NSW proceeding 2011/235408 (known as the Paperlinx proceedings) until 5 September 2012;
and the list is to be prepared by reference to those categories.
6 There were two matters raised before me. The first issue is whether the first and second respondents have established that the relevant documents, being the 69 documents in question, are privileged and fall within the scope of paragraph 3(a) of the order made on 11 September 2014. The second issue is whether in any event there has been a waiver of privilege in relation to some of these documents.
Are the 69 documents privileged?
7 The first and second respondents have relied upon inter alia an affidavit of Marelda Hibberd sworn 5 September 2014, a partner of Maddocks, and also an affidavit of the first respondent (Mr Galloway) sworn 27 January 2015. There was no cross-examination of the deponents. Mr Galloway deposed at [3] to [11] and [13] the following:
3. I am informed by our solicitor Ms Wajiha Ahmed that
(1) in response to an affidavit made by her on 25 September 2014, which annexes thereto a list of documents,
(2) the Applicant on 24 October 2014 filed in court objections to the claim for privilege made in respect of the documents numbered 1 to 69 in the list of documents annexed to Ms Ahmed’s above affidavit.
4. Annexure A hereto is a copy of that part of the list of documents annexed to Ms Ahmed's affidavit that identifies the documents numbered 1 to 69 therein.
5. In about December 2009 the Second Respondent and I engaged a firm of solicitors, Maddocks, to act for us in connection with the disposal of our interests in Angus Agencies Pty Ltd and related matters. Those transactions completed on about 1 March 2010.
6. From around the second half of 2010 onwards Domain Paper (Australia) P/L began to make complaints about what had occurred in respect of disposal by me and the Second Respondent of our interests in Angus Agencies.
7. One of the persons representing Domain in those complaints was a Mr David Grear.
8. The Second Respondent and I became concerned at the terms and tenor of the complaints being made on behalf of Domain and from time to time after about August 2010 we went to Maddocks for legal advice about our position and the disputes etc. generally. Very often I represented the Second Respondent in those dealings.
9. I am informed by Ms Ahmed and believe that each of the documents identified in nos. 1 to 69 in Annexure A hereto is a document obtained by her from Maddocks as being from a file No. 5637569 kept by that firm in respect of its dealings with me and the Second Respondent from about December 2009 to about September 2012.
10. For the purposes of making this affidavit I have read what I am informed by Ms Ahmed is a paper copy of each document numbered 1 to 69 in Annexure A hereto.
11. The descriptions of each document in Annexure A hereto appears to me to accurately describe it.
…
13. Each of the documents identified in Annexure A hereto appear to me to be documents concerning advice in relation to threatened court proceedings by various parties including the Applicant; including advising in relation to and attending a privately arranged mediation with the Applicant, and the former Applicant Angus Agencies Pty Ltd in this proceeding in August 2011.
8 I have now read the 69 documents. In my view, the descriptions given by Mr Galloway are accurate. Counsel for the first and second respondents usefully provided to me a table setting out a description of the documents and their relevance to the pleaded issues. Annexed to these reasons is a copy of that table, although I have had to modify it by adding one further document. I have verified its accuracy from my inspection of the documents.
9 Based upon my inspection of the documents and the uncontested affidavit material, I am well satisfied that each of the 69 documents in question fall under both the advice limb and the litigation limb of legal professional privilege in terms of the applicable common law test. The material in support of the claim is sufficiently detailed and probative thereof (for a discussion of some of the principles, particularly as to the advice limb, see Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Pacific Equity Partners Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 796 at [28] to [36]).
10 The applicant made a number of responses to this material.
11 First, it was said that paragraph 3(a) of his Honour’s order of 11 September 2014 had not been strictly complied with because there was no identification of the “substantial injustice” as required by his Honour’s order. But I am readily prepared to infer that such a result would or is likely to follow from the disclosure of such otherwise privileged material that was relevant to the issues. In any event, I am not bound by the strictures of his Honour’s earlier interlocutory order and will treat it as varied to the extent that I can infer the relevant prejudice in any event without its express identification in an affidavit. Further, it must not be forgotten that his Honour was endeavouring to craft a workable compromise to do justice to the parties given that the issue of privilege was permitted to be reopened by his Honour. In accordance with the spirit of what his Honour intended, I will proceed accordingly.
12 Second, it was said by the applicant that his Honour’s 11 September 2014 order had been crafted so that it excluded documents of a “transactional nature” and documents that fell outside the litigation limb. I am not so convinced. I accept that there are some vagaries in how the order has been expressed. I accept also that there was some debate before his Honour on 11 September 2014 that leaves some room for such an argument. Nevertheless, the following should be noted. First, the clear exclusion on “transactional” documents were those that pre-dated 1 September 2010; the matter is unclear concerning documents that post-dated that date. Second, it cannot be said that the formulation in order 3(a) clearly included one limb of privilege and clearly excluded another. It is expressed in hybrid terms. Third, having reviewed each of the 69 documents, I am satisfied that each document in substance falls under the description of order 3(a), whether or not it also has another characterisation as a “transactional” document (whatever that precisely means).
13 In summary, each of the documents falls under paragraph 3(a) of his Honour’s orders of 11 September 2014. Alternatively, in substance, each of the 69 documents are privileged whether or not they strictly fall within such parameters. If the formulation in paragraph 3(a) was not sufficient to encapsulate them, I would have modified his Honour’s interlocutory order so as to embrace them.
Has there been a waiver of privilege in any document?
14 The applicant asserted that there had been a waiver of privilege in some of the 69 documents, but could not precisely identify which (although faint reference was made to several of them, which it was said that I should particularly look at).
15 When I enquired whether the waiver was a contents/disclosure waiver, an associated material waiver or an issue waiver, the applicant’s counsel sought to rely upon all permutations and combinations. Further enquiry of the applicant’s counsel revealed that the waiver related to the plea of “compromise and/or estoppel” set out in [68] to [77] of the first and second respondents’ defence dated 16 April 2015 to the second further amended statement of claim. Those pleas rely upon communications between Maddocks and a Mr Graer, purportedly on behalf of the applicant. I also have little doubt that there has been a waiver of such communications as have been pleaded. I have little doubt that there has been a waiver of any privilege in relation to associated communications with Mr Graer; indeed, there may be no privilege at all as there is not the necessary element of confidentiality. I also have little doubt that any material in the Maddocks file which consisted of a note of such a communication would in all likelihood be the subject of a waiver. But otherwise, I do not consider that there has been a waiver. The plea is not about a state of mind but rather is based upon communications with a third party.
16 Having reviewed the 69 documents, there is no document that meets the description of such a type that would fall within what I would consider to be a waiver category. There are some documents which refer to Graer, but they do not concern the pleas in [68] to [77] of the defence.
17 The waiver assertion does not justify an order for the production of any of the 69 documents.
Conclusion
18 The first and second respondents have justified their privilege claims in relation to the 69 documents. There has been no waiver. An order for production for inspection of any of these documents will be refused.
19 In relation to costs, the parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on costs once I delivered this judgment. Despite being unsuccessful on this application, counsel for the applicant ambitiously sought a costs order against the first and second respondents on an indemnity basis, submitting that the history of the proceeding did not warrant the hearing of this interlocutory application and that those respondents were at fault. The first and second respondents submitted that costs should follow the event. In my view, given the arguable imprecision of the formulation of paragraph 3(a) of the orders made on 11 September 2014, and also given that the first and second respondents did not precisely identify the basis on which it was asserted that disclosure of the documents would cause “substantial injustice”, a more appropriate costs order is that the parties’ costs of and incidental to this application be their costs in the cause. I shall so order.
I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beach. |
Associate:
ANNEXURE
Document No. | Description of document | Date of document | Particular significance | Relevant paras: 2nd FASOC Defence |
1 | Email from Stephen Schmidhofer (SS) and response Terry Dewing (TD) – Accountant clarifying issues in relation to John Galloway (JG) instructions for the Fox Timber loan– 2 emails | 2.09.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
2 | Letter from JG to Duncan Hall (DH) seeking advice on allegations raised by David Graer (DG) – 2 pages | 02.09.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12], [15]-[27], [68]-[70], [76], [81]-[87] |
3 | Handwritten file note of SS re: meeting with DH and Dave Newman (DN) discussing allegations raised by DG against JG | 06.09.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [68]-[78] Defence [68]-[78] |
4 | Email to JG from SS re: release of charge over AA. | 06.09.10 | Part of JG Defence in Domain proceedings in the Federal Court | Defence [68]-[78] |
5 | Letter from JG to SS regarding instructions re: the Fox Timber loan | 07.09.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
6 | File note from SS regarding telephone attendance on JG re: Domain suing JG and allegations of DG to sue JG | 10.09.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12], [15(b)]; [46]-[54]; [68]-[78] Defence |
7 + 18 | Draft letter to JG seeking instructions on allegations raised by DG relating to the Fox Timber loan | Undated | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as leaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
8 | Follow up email from TD and SS regarding instructions on Fox Timber loan– 2 emails | 6.10.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as leaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
9 | Handwritten file note of SS re: t/a on JG regarding seeking instructions re: AA website | 08.10.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as leaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12] |
10 | Email from DH to SS to send to JG regarding advice to client on Angus Graphics (AG) domain name – 1 email | 8.10.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12] |
11 | File note from SS regarding telephone attendance on JG re: allegations of DG to sue JG as DG had called JG earlier that day. | 15.10.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12]; Defence [68]-[78] |
12 | Email from SS to TD re: allegations of the Fox Timber loan of JG | 29.10.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
13 | Email from JG to SS re: AA documents being collected from the premises of AG and allegations of Domain by DG | 09.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15]; [46]-[54]; [81]-[87]; |
14 | Handwritten note of Mirelda Hibberd (MH) re: t/a on TD re: Fox Timber loan | 00.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15]; [46]-[54] |
15 | Filenote of t/a on JG by SS re: Rocket loan account and potential issues | 10.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [9]-[12], [15], [16], [39]-[45], [81]-[87]; Defence [68]-[78] |
16 | Handwritten filenote of SS on t/a on JG re: Domain allegations | 12.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [31]-[38], [46]-[54], [81]-[87] |
17 | Handwritten filenote of unknown Solicitor for Maddocks re: DG | Undated | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | All |
18 | See 7 above. | |||
19 | Filenote of MH re: t/a on JG re: seeking instructions re: Fox Timber loan | 12.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54]; Defence [68]-[78] |
20 | Email between TD and SS re: clarifying issues raised by DG re: JG loan account | 15.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15]; [46]-[54] |
21 | Follow on emails between SS and TD re: 20 above – 5 emails | 16-17.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15]; [28]-[30]; [46]-[54] |
22 | Email from JG to SS re: asset register | 16.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [28]-[30];[46]-[54] |
23 | Email from SS to JG to advise update of DG email [Not pressed] | 19.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | |
24 | Interoffice email in response to DG email threatening to sue JG and AG between MH and SS and their proposed response to DG – 2 emails | 22.11.10 | Part of JG Defence in Domain proceedings in the Federal Court | Generally |
25 | File note from SS regarding telephone attendance on JG re: issues of assignment of lease from AA to AG and personal guarantee of JG. | 22.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13], [15], [16] |
26 | File note from SS regarding telephone attendance on JG re: issues of AG being shut out from premises and Fox Timber. | 22.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13(d)]; [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
27 | Handwritten file note of Solicitor at Maddocks re: t/a on JG | Undated | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15], [16], [39]-[54] |
28 | Handwritten file note of SS re: t/a on JG re: ongoing issues of AG – 4 pages | 22.11.10 | [13]-[14]; [15]; [31]-[54] | |
29 | Email from JG to DH regarding the clarification of the AA sale to Gary Wood (GW) in light of the threats to sue by DG email of 22.11.10 | 23.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15], [16], [28]-[30]; [81]-[87]; Defence [23]-[25], [34]-[41] |
30 | Email from JG to SS –handwritten file note of Solicitor of Maddocks x 2 emails | Undated | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [28]-[30] |
31 | Email response from JG to SS responding to DG allegations to sue JG and Angus Graphics – 1 email and 40 statements | 23.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13(d)]; [35]-[38] |
32 | Handwritten note of t/a on JG re: Fox Tim loan and allegations raised by DG | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
33 | Interoffice email discussing how to deal with new owners of Angus Agencies P/L (AA) and their approach to shut down the AG office and phone lines and potential defamatory letter sent to the customers of AG between MH and SS – 3 emails and annexure | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13]; [15]; [16(a)]; [35]-[38] |
34 | Email from JG to SS regarding AG name registration and seeking advice. | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13];[16(a)]; [35]-[38] |
35 | Interoffice email between DH and MH drafting a response to the email from JG seeking advice re: AG. | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13(d)] |
36 | Interoffice email between DH and MH regarding AG issues raised by DG of alleged phoenix scheme allegations | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13]; [15]; [16]; [28]-[30] |
37 | Email to JG from DH regarding plant and equipment assignment by AA to AG seeking instructions and providing advice re: JG seeking information about AG phoenix scheme allegations as contained with the Domain pleadings | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [28]-[30]; [35]-[38]; [16(a)] |
38 | Email advice and annexures to JG from SS regarding advice on drafting of Fox Timber loan. Domain proceedings contain pleadings related to this email and the Fox Timber loan – 1 email and 1 annexure with 5 pages | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
39 | Email from DH to MH to consider issues to discuss re: AG threatened proceedings by DG for meeting in Sydney with JG in early December 2010 and response – 2 emails | 24.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [28]-[30]; [71]-[75]; [81]-[87] |
40 | SS and MH emails discussing AG customers and alleged phoenix scheme allegations and seeking instructions from JG – 6 emails | 24-25-.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13]-[14] |
41 | SS t/a on MH re: AG lease issues and trading name – and t/a on JG by SS. AG phoenix scheme allegations as contained with the Domain pleadings | 25.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [13(d)]; [16(a)]; [35]-[38] |
42 | JG seeking advice on 37 above from SS and response from SS – 3 emails | 25.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [16(a)]; [35]-[38] |
43 | Interoffice email discussing t/a by MH on DG regarding claims of Domain and seeking a formal meeting in early 12.10 – 2 emails | 25.-26.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [16(a)]; [35]-[38] |
44 | Email from SS to JG to advise the contents of email above at 39. [Not pressed] | 25.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | |
45 | Handwritten files notes of interoffice meeting to discuss strategy of DG allegations | 26.11.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [13], [15], [16], [31]-[38] |
46 | Internal Maddocks Chronology of allegations raised by DG | 26.11.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [15], [16]; [31]-[34]; [46]-[54] |
47 | JG draft email to SS re: AG payments made to AA accidentally by C21 clients and return of money and response with interoffice re-drafting – issues raised Respondent Defences in Domain proceedings – 4 emails | 26.11.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [31]-[38] |
48 | Email from SS to JG regarding the Fox Timber statutory demand – 2 emails. These concern the substantive allegations regarding Fox Timber loan in Federal Court proceedings. | 30.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG as pleaded by Domain in the Federal Court matter | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
49 | Interoffice email between SS and MH regarding DG proposed outline of claims and follow up for a meeting with JG on 30.11.10 – 2 emails | 30.11.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [15(a)]; [31]-[38] |
50 | Handwritten file note of meeting with JG, MH, SS and DH to discuss claims raised by DG | 30.11.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [15], [16], [31]-[38]; [46]-[54] |
51 | Draft email to DG re: outstanding outline of claims – Domain proceedings – interoffice email with 1 annexure MH – DN | 30.11.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [15]; [31]-[38] |
52 | Interoffice email re: billing to JG between MH and SS [Not pressed] | 01.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | |
53 | Interoffice email between DH and SS re: DG response with allegations – Domain proceedings | 3.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
54 | Interoffice email between SS and DH re: DG allegations and t/a on JG specifically relating to DG suggesting JG will be put in jail by Domain and taking his houses and his children’s houses – Domain proceedings in Federal Court – 1 email | 07.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings and a substantive part of the Respondent Defences | [31]-[34] |
55 | Interoffice email discussing the above in 46 between MH and DH and draft advice to JG – 1 email | 08.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [31]-[34]; [15(b)]; [46]-[54] |
56 | Email to JG re: advice on threatened Court proceedings by Domain from MH – 1 email | 08.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [15(b)]; [46]-[54] and generally |
57 | Interoffice email re: t/a on Graer re: threatened Court proceedings between MH and DH – 2 emails | 09.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [31]-[38] |
58 | Email from JG re: DH threatened Court proceedings advice and defamatory statements from Stephen Mercovich (SM) to MH – 1 email and 2 annexures | 10.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [31]-[38] |
59 | MH and DH email exchange re: DH threatened Court proceedings and attempted follow up by phone with DG – 2 emails [Not pressed] | 10.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | |
60 | JG email to SS seeking advice and interoffice email exchange re: registration of AA (Australia) Pty Ltd and bearing on threatened Court proceedings by DG – 4 emails [Not pressed] | 13.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | |
61 | DH t/a on JG email to SS to recall re: C21 customers payments to AA accidentally – Domain proceedings respondent Defence raises this issue – 3 emails | 13.12.10 | This a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | Generally |
62 | JG follow up email to MH re 53 above and seeking advice and advice to JG from MH – 3 emails | 14-16.12.10 | This is a substantive part of the defence of the Respondents in these proceedings | [15], [16]; [31]-[38] |
63 | Draft email to DG re: demand on Maddocks file and threatened Court proceedings on behalf of AA of 16.12.10 – interoffice email between MH, DH and SS – 8 emails | 16-17.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | All |
64 | JG email to DH in response to email of 24.11.10 re: AG. Domain proceedings allegations relating to AG. | 16.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations against JG in Federal Court proceedings | [15], [16]; [17]-[27]; [28]-[30]; [55]-[66] |
65 | Interoffice email discussing DG demand of 16.12.10 and 21.12.10 for Maddocks file between SS and MH and DH – 3 emails | 20.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | All |
66 | JG email to MH re: proposed email to AG customers about AA receiving AG payments – issues in AG defence of Domain proceedings – 2 emails | 22.12.10 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [31]-[38] |
67 | DH t/a on MH re: These are the substantive allegations relating to payment of Maddocks bill by AA – 1 email | 18.01.11 | These are the substantive allegations generally in the Federal Court proceedings | |
68 | JG email to MH and response re: AG monies paid to AA from C21 – Domain proceedings issues raised in Defences – 2 emails | 25.01.11 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [15], [16]; [31]-[38] |
JG email to MH re: Alan Davies (AD) threatening call to JG and fax seeking advice – Domain proceedings and response from MH – 2 emails | 11.02.11 | These concern the substantive allegations generally in Federal Court proceedings | [39]-[45] |
