discovery of documents subject to a claim for without prejudice privilege to be given by reference to a bundle.82 The person making the affidavit should have read the documents the subject of the claim for without prejudice privilege and state that fact in the affidavit. The person should indicate whether the document is confidential to the party claiming the privilege (this may also be relevant where the privilege is made in proceedings involving a stranger to the negotiations). CHALLENGES TO CLAIMS FOR WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE Unlike most claims for privilege (in the case of settlement negotiations between the parties), the parties to the litigation will have access to the documents the subject of the claim for without prejudice privilege. In those circumstances, the prospects must be good that meaningful conferral between the parties will result in challenges being resolved without the need to require judicial intervention. However, if conferral does not resolve the challenge and a ruling is required, if available, a judge other than the one trying the case should determine that challenge. This is because, having regard to the indicia identified above, the Court will usually need to inspect the documents together with the affidavit evidence filed to determine whether settlement negotiations were bona fide taking place as claimed by the party asserting the privilege. It is not controversial that the Court has this power.83 By recognising the principles underlying the without prejudice privilege and its limits, practitioners can be in a position to advise clients on steps that can be taken to properly protect the matters advanced during the course of settlement negotiations from subsequent reliance by other parties in Court proceedings. NOTES 1.
Alleyn v Thurecht [1983] 2 Qd R 706 at 718 per Thomas J (as his Honour then was).
2.
See for example Jumitogad Pty Ltd v Garraway (unreported decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory delivered on 9 October 1998 by Kearney ACJ, Lib No BC9807743). This case is also commended as an illustration of how the term "without prejudice" can be misused.
9.
Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 2443 at [24] per Auld LJ.
53.
Most recently acknowledged in Teoh v Greenway (2015) 71 MVR 271 at [17] per Burns J.
Old Papa's Franchise Systems Pty Ltd v Camisa Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 11 at [95] per McLure J (as her Honour then was).
10.
54.
11.
Field v Commissioner for Railway (1957) 99 CLR 285 at 291–2 per Dixon CJ, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ.
Burg Design Pty Ltd v Wolki (1999) 162 ALR 639 at [15] per Burchett J.
55.
12.
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [2004] 1 WLR 667 at [62] per Rix LJ.
Somatra Ltd v Sinclair Roche & Temperley [2001] ANZ Conv R 193 at 195 per Clarke LJ.
56.
13.
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 at 1300 per Lord Griffiths.
Yokogawa Aust Pty Ltd & Ors v Alstom Power Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 738 at [96] per Duggan J.
57.
14.
Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608 at 614; Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335 at 337 per Lord Esher.
Austotel Management v Jamieson (1995) 57 FCR 411 at 419 per Burchett J.
58.
15.
Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2002] 1 Qd R 233 at [32]–[37] per Williams JA.
Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] PNLR 74 at 81 per Leggatt LJ.
59.
16.
Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276 at [20] per Pincus JA.
Yokogawa Aust Pty Ltd & Ors v Alstom Power Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 738 at [108]-[109] per Duggan J.
60.
Schering Corp v Cipla Ltd [2005] FSR 25 at [21] per Laddie J.
17.
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333.
61.
Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335.
18.
Brown v Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 187 ALR 714 at [172]–[174] per Emmett J.
62.
19.
Hoefler v Tomlinson (1995) 60 FCR 452 at 453 per Spender J.
Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v Wards Mobility Services Ltd [1997] FSR 178 at 191 per Neuberger J; Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1378.
63.
20.
Silver Fox Co Pty Ltd (as Trustee for the Baker Family Trust) v Lenard's Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 214 ALR 621 at 624 per Mansfield J.
21.
Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] 1 WLR 2066 at [81] per Lord Mance.
Quad Consulting Pty Ltd v David R Bleakley & Associates Pty Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 86 at 93 per Hill J, subsequently followed in Rosebanner Pty Ltd v EnergyAustralia (2009) 223 FLR 460 at [412] per Ward J (as her Honour then was).
64.
22.
Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608 at 614 per McTiernan, Taylor and Owen JJ.
[1992] CAT 1052 (unreported decision of the EWCA (Civ) delivered on 10 November 1992).
65.
23.
Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 2443 at [34] per Auld LJ.
[2000] 1 WLR 2436 at 2448-9, citing Fazil-Alizadeh v Nikbin [1993] CAT 205, delivered 25 February 1993.
66.
24.
Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2002] 1 Qd R 233 at [29]–[31] per Williams JA.
[1992] CAT 1052, see in particular the blackmail cases referred to by Hoffmann LJ.
67.
25.
Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Arthur Andersen [2002] 1 Qd R 233 at [40] per Williams JA.
Pitts v Adney (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 886 at 889 per Walsh J.
68.
26.
Collins Thomson Pty Ltd (in liq) v Clayton [2002] NSWSC 366 at [12] per Austin J.
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [2004] 1 WLR 667 at [60] per Rix LJ.
69.
27.
Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] NSWCA 160 at [28] and [51] per Spigelman CJ.
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 at 543 per Mason CJ and 568 per McHugh J.
70.
28.
Old Papa's Franchise Systems Pty Ltd v Camisa Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 11 at [91] per McLure J (as her Honour then was).
Davies v Nyland (1974) 10 SASR 76 at 91-92 per Wells J.
71.
Section 131(5)(b) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
72.
See for example Guideline 20 of the Prosecution Guidelines of Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (although in contrast see para 74 of the WA DPP Statement of Prosecution Policy and Guidelines 2005 which although in similar terms does not expressly provide for offers to be made by the defence on a without prejudice basis).
73.
Rabin v Mendoza & Co [1954] 1 WLR 271 at 273 per Denning LJ (as his Lordship then was).
74.
Direct Acceptance Corporation Ltd v Lord [1994] ANZ ConvR 78 at 80 per Giles J.
75.
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v. Greater London Council [1988] 1 All ER 549 at 554 per Balcombe, Slade and Stocker LJJ.
76.
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Dare Sutton Clarke Pty Ltd [2000] SASC 78 at [14] per Burley J.
77.
Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63 ; (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 689; Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2002] VSCA 59 ; (2002) 4 VR 332 at [11].
29.
Jones v Millward [2005] 1 Qd R 498 at 500 per Holmes J (as her Honour then was).
30.
Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623 at 635 per Slade LJ.
31.
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (1989) 88 ALR 69 at 73–4 per Beaumont J.
32.
South Shropshire District Council v Amos [1987] 1 WLR 1271 at 1276-7 per Parker LJ, adopted in Australia by Lukies v Ripley (No 2) (1994) 35 NSWLR 283 at 290 per Young J (as his Honour then was).
33.
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255 at [62] per Newnes JA.
34.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd & Ors v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QSC 365 at 10 per Helman J.
35.
Field v Commissioner for Railway (1957) 99 CLR 285 at 293 per Dixon CJ, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ.
36.
GPI Leisure Corporation Ltd v Yuill (1997) 42 NSWLR 225 at 226 per Young J.
37.
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 at 1299–1300 per Lord Griffiths.
78.
38.
Yokogawa Australia Pty Ltd v Alstom Power Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 738 at [104]–[105] per Duggan J.
National Crime Authority v S (1991) 100 ALR 151 at 159–160.
79.
39.
Lock v Lock [1966] SASR 246 at 250 per Napier CJ, Chamberlain J and Walters AJ.
CTC Resources NL v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 48 at [33]–[35] per Owen and Steyler JJ (as their Honours then were).
40.
AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992) 7 ACSR 463 at 468 per Rogers CJ in Comm Div.
80.
Barnes v Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 242 ALR 601 at [18]-[19].
41.
Unilever plc v Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436 at 2448-9 per Robert Walker LJ.
81.
42.
Yokogawa Aust Pty Ltd & Ors v Alstom Power Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 738 at [107] per Duggan J.
Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co [1981] 1 WLR 529 at 537 per Templeman LJ (as his Lordship then was).
82.
43.
Alstom Power Ltd v Yokogawa Australia Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2009] SASC 100 at [55] per Anderson J.
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Dare Sutton Clarke Pty Ltd [2000] SASC 78 at [12] per Burley J.
44.
Field v Commissioner for Railway (1957) 99 CLR 285 at 292 per Dixon CJ, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ.
83.
45.
Dowell and Anor v Custombuilt Homes Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 171 at [114] per Heenan J.
South Shropshire District Council v Amos [1987] 1 WLR 1271 at 1276-7 per Parker LJ; Yokogawa Aust Pty Ltd & Ors v Alstom Power Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 738 at [117][118] per Duggan J.
3.
Turton v Benson (1718) 24 ER 488.
4.
Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading v TMT Asia [2011] 1 AC 662 at [27] per Lord Clarke.
46.
Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Pty Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 713 at 727 per Wootten J.
5.
(1957) 99 CLR 285 at 291–2 per Dixon CJ, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ.
47.
Hayne v Hirst (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 480 at 489.
6.
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 at 1299–1300 per Lord Griffiths.
48.
(1794) 170 ER 306.
49.
(1794) 170 ER 306 at 307 per Lord Kenyon.
7.
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1988] 3 All ER 737 at per Lord Griffiths.
50.
Tenstat Pty Ltd v Permanent Trustees Australia Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 625.
8.
Phiga Pty Ltd (ACN 002 297 056) & Ors v Roche & Ors [2011] FCA 240 at [86]; Cutts v Head [1984] 1 All ER 597; Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1988] 3 All ER 737.
51.
McDowell v Hirschfield Lipson & Rumney [1992] 2 FLR 126.
52.
Ofulue v Bossert [2009] 1 AC 990.
34 | Brief November 2015