Mann v Carnell: 21 Dec 1999

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Practice and procedure – Preliminary discovery – Legal professional privilege – Loss of privilege – Waiver by disclosure to third party.
Australian Capital Territory – Separation of powers – Representative government – Nature of relationship between the ACT Legislative Assembly and the ACT Executive.
Words and phrases – ‘client legal privilege’.
‘What brings about the waiver is the inconsistency, which the courts, where necessary informed by considerations of fairness, perceive, between the conduct of the client and maintenance of the confidentiality; not some over-riding principle of fairness operating at large. . Disclosure by a client of confidential legal advice received by the client, which may be for the purpose of explaining or justifying the client’s actions, or for some other purpose, will waive privilege if such disclosure is inconsistent with the confidentiality which the privilege serves to protect . . considerations of fairness may be relevant to a determination of whether there is such inconsistency.’
Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJJ
[1999] HCA 66, [1999] 201 CLR 1, [1999] 168 ALR 86, [1999] 74 ALJR 378
Cited by:
CitedBrennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.344013