Where a client or party or party Disclose of communication looses privilege – disclose, by purpose or consent, confident communications then the privilege is generally lost as per (1983) 153 CLR 52. It does not extend to Baker v Campbell material which has an existence apart from the advice process as per Baker v (1983) 153 CLR 52. Legal professional privilege can be waived at any time Campbell by the client. This infers that the privilege cannot operate beyond the reach of the law documentary or other material which has an existence apart from the process of giving or receiving advice or the conduct of litigation as per (1976) 135 CLR 674. Grant v Downs There is no privilege for: Documents which are the means of carrying out, or are evidence of, transactions which are not themselves the giving or receiving of advice or part of the conduct of actual or anticipated litigation. Communications which would otherwise be privileged lose their immunity disclosure if they amount to a participation in a crime or a fraud. Documents were the client has expressly waived the privilege. as per (1983) 153 CLR 52. Baker v Campbell **3 Main Exceptions To commit a crime generally There is a presumption that there is no intention to interfere with basic common law doctrines unless the words of the statute expressly or necessarily require that result as per Potter v (1908) 7 277. If a client seeks advice from a lawyer intended to assist in the Minahan commission of a crime or engagement of fraud, the legal adviser being ignorant of the purpose of the advice, the communication between the two attracts no privilege. This is regardless of whether the legal adviser knows of the unlawful purpose being intended or not as per . Baker v Evans It includes the furtherance of some illegal activity that the client is intending or is engaged upon as per (1983) 153 CLR 52 Baker v Campbell The person alleging the illegal activity bears the proof that such an illegal activity was occurring in order to be sufficiently capable of removing the privilege as per Baker v . Evans As stated by Stephen J in it this the case then a man intending to R v Cox, wasn’t murder or treason might easily take legal advice for the purpose of enabling ‘commit himself to do so with impunity and to frustrate criminal purposes’ If a party is alleging that legal privilege this party must displace the privilege doesn’t attach, by demonstrating more than a mere allegation of fraud or crime or illegal purpose. In AFP v Propend Finance Pty Ltd –
Disclose of communication looses privilege – Where a client or party or party disclose, by purpose or consent, confident communications then the privilege is generally lost as per Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52. It does not extend to material which has an existence apart from the advice process as per Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52. Legal professional privilege can be waived at any time by the client. This infers that the privilege cannot operate beyond the reach of the law documentary or other material which has an existence apart from the process of giving or receiving advice or the conduct of litigation as per Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674. There is no privilege for: Documents which are the means of carrying out, or are evidence of, transactions which are not themselves the giving or receiving of advice or part of the conduct of actual or anticipated litigation. Communications which would otherwise be privileged lose their immunity disclosure if they amount to a participation in a crime or a fraud. Documents were the client has expressly waived the privilege. as per Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52. **3 Main Exceptions To commit a crime generally There is a presumption that there is no intention to interfere with basic common law doctrines unless the words of the statute expressly or necessarily require that result as per Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 277. If a client seeks advice from a lawyer intended to assist in the commission of a crime or engagement of fraud, the legal adviser being ignorant of the purpose of the advice, the communication between the two attracts no privilege. This is regardless of whether the legal adviser knows of the unlawful purpose being intended or not as per Baker v Evans . It includes the furtherance of some illegal activity that the client is intending or is engaged upon as per Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 The person alleging the illegal activity bears the proof that such an illegal activity was occurring in order to be sufficiently capable of removing the privilege as per Baker v Evans . As stated by Stephen J in R v Cox, it this wasn’t the case then a man intending to ‘commit murder or treason might easily take legal advice for the purpose of enabling himself to do so with impunity and to frustrate criminal purposes’ If a party is alleging that legal privilege doesn’t attach, this party must displace the privilege by demonstrating more than a mere allegation of fraud or crime or illegal purpose. In AFP v Propend Finance Pty Ltd –
Ethics_Summary.docx