Case: Dalleagles Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 4 WAR 325
Outcome: considered
In Australia, in Dalleagles Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1991) 4 WAR 325 (' Dalleagles' ), Anderson J rejected the argument that legal advice privilege only extended to what is literally either legal advice or a request for legal advice, and arrived at much the same position as Taylor LJ enunciated in Balabel . At 332-333, Anderson J said: 'I do not think the authorities provide justification for concluding that the doctrine of legal professional privilege as applying to non-curial communications between solicitor and client has been refined to the extent submitted by counsel for the defendants, which would require professional communications to be excluded from the protection of privilege unless expressed as advice simpliciter or as a request for such advice or unless forming part of a communication expressed in that way. But anyway, I think it is the case that whenever a lay client gives instructions to a legal practitioner to perform specialist legal services involving the exercise of professional skill, there is imposed on the solicitor a duty to give any advice reasonably necessary to protect the client's interests in the transaction whether expressly requested or not. Two cases in this Court illustrating that rule are Watts v Public Trustee (WA) [1980] WAR 97 and Stone James &amp; Co v Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [1987] WAR 363: see also Macpherson v Kevin J Prunty &amp; Associates [1983] 1 VR 573. It is not a large step from that position to say that whenever a client gives instructions to his solicitor there is assumed to be a request for advice. In my opinion, discourse between solicitor and client with reference to the transactions covered by those instructions, that is, professional discourse in a professional capacity, should be regarded as prima facie for the purpose of giving and receiving advice. This would apply to any communication that is on its face a communication of a professional nature from the solicitor to the client or his agent touching the subject matter of the solicitor's engagement and any communication from the client to the solicitor in connection with that engagement. Only if the rule is applied in that way can the policy of it be carried out and its object practically fulfilled.' Anderson J went on to say that there are limits to the application of this principle, including the fact that the material in question must have been created for the purpose of fulfilling the solicitor's professional engagement: at 334. 98 In DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc [2003] FCA 1191 ; (2003) 135 FCR 151 (' DSE' ), Allsop J followed Dalleagles and Balabel , and said that he saw no difference of substance between them: at 173 [71]. But Allsop J made it clear that he did not consider that these cases extended legal professional privilege beyond legal advice (at 165 [45]): 'I do not read the reasons of Taylor LJ as extending the privilege beyond legal advice. The reasoning of Taylor LJ was clearly directed to the privilege being so limited. What legal advice is, however, goes beyond formal advice as to the law. This recognition does not see the privilege extend to pure commercial advice. In any given circumstance, however, it may be impossible to disentangle the lawyer's views of the legal framework from other reasons that all go to make up the "advice as to what should prudently and sensibly be done in the relevant legal framework" (Taylor LJ in Balabel at 330). That is how I read this last cited paragraph of Colman J: not extending the privilege beyond legal advice to commercial advice, but as recognising the form and nature of advice in a practical day to day context.' The last sentence in this passage refers to the statement by Colman J in NRG at 983 that a solicitor's professional duty or function not infrequently relates to the commercial wisdom of entering into a given transaction in relation to which legal advice is also sought. 99 Allsop J's judgment contains an extensive review of the cases which have referred to, and applied, the reasoning of Taylor J in Balabel . They include Saunders , in which French J said that the principle applied by Anderson J in Dalleagles extends to materials brought into existence by the client in order to communicate with the solicitor for purposes which would attract privilege: at 472. In Wenkart v Australian Federal Police (unreported, Branson J, 11 November 1986) (' Wenkart' ), Branson J cited Dalleagles for the proposition that 'professional discourse in a professional capacity, with reference to transactions covered by a retainer to provide legal advice, will be regarded as prima facie for the purpose of giving and receiving advice'. 128 Anderson J explained the scope of this protection and the reasons for it in Dalleagles at 333-334: 'What is protected, of course, is that which is communicated between solicitor and client. It is the communication that is privileged. But this is not to say that material that is not literally a communication or manifestly the record of a communication is never protected. There are many instances of protection being extended to such material. The examples of the draft letter that never leaves the solicitor's office, the draft agreement and the draft statement of claim have already been referred to. The reason why such material is protected is often stated to be that disclosure of it will, or will tend to, reveal the privileged communication: see Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice , per Dawson J (at 496). Thus a note made by a solicitor of a conference with his client will be privileged in so far as it is a record of the communication from the client (that communication being privileged) but also in so far as it might contain notes of the solicitor's own thoughts in regard to the matters communicated to him. Protection is afforded in the latter case on the ground that disclosure of that material might tend to reveal what had been communicated to the solicitor. There is much in the cases to support the view that this is the true basis upon which draft agreements, draft letters, draft pleadings and the like have long been accepted as privileged; that it is not so much because they are themselves "advice" or "communication" but because they will, if disclosed, reveal, or tend to reveal, the content of privileged communications. Material created by the solicitor in fulfilment of his engagement "is the result of the solicitor's mind working upon and acting as professional adviser with reference to" material communicated to him confidentially in his professional capacity ( Kennedy v Lyell [1883] 23 Ch D 387 at 407) and, as such, will by its very nature tend to reveal the content of the communication in response to which it had been prepared. Of course, there are limits and these have often been stated. The material must have been created solely for the purpose of fulfilling the engagement. The material must be confidential. No protection can extend to agreements in their final form intended to constitute the actual transaction between the parties or to records made for the purpose of evidencing an actual transaction, or to letters sent or to forms lodged at public offices or to pleadings filed in courts. This is because legal professional privilege exists to secure confidentiality and such material is no longer confidential.' 132 The principles that emerge from these cases operate to protect privileged communications against the risk that they will be disclosed by secondary evidence: see Tomlinson J in Three Rivers [2002] EWHC 2730 (Comm) at [3]. The question whether privileged communications will be disclosed by virtue of the disclosure of another document, such as a draft pleading, draft agreement or draft witness statement, raises a question of objective fact that depends on what the other document actually states or conveys, either explicitly or as a matter of reasonable inference. To adapt the language used by Gummow J in Propend and Anderson J in Dalleagles , the question is whether the disclosure of the document in question will directly reveal, or allow its reader to infer, the actual content or substance of a privileged communication. 133 There is, of course, a difference between explicit disclosure and disclosure by inference. Inferences are rarely certain. In my opinion, what Gummow J and Anderson J each had in mind was that the document in question would support an inference of fact as to the content or substance of a privileged communication; but the inference of fact must have a definite and reasonable foundation in the contents of the document. It would not be sufficient that the document as a whole, or particular statements within it, cause a reader to wonder or speculate whether legal advice had been obtained and what was the substance of that advice. I do not think that this is the kind of tendency that Anderson J had in mind in Dalleagles when his Honour said that the true basis for extending privilege to this class of documents was not so much that they were themselves advice or communications, but because they will, if disclosed, reveal or tend to reveal, the content of privileged communications.