Legal professional privilege
In Hannaford v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals NSW [2013] NSWSC 1708 (Schmidt J), the plaintiffs sued for malicious prosecution. They sought access to documents over which the RSPCA claimed privilege under ss 118 and 119 of the Evidence Act 1995. The plaintiffs contended that there was no credible evidence that the solicitor and counsel (both of whom were RSPCA board members) were independent. Further, the RSPCA had not led evidence about the dominant purpose for which the disputed documents were created. Schmidt J held that the RSPCA did not meet the onus to establish privilege when it failed to adduce evidence from relevant witnesses but, in any event, privilege in the documents had been waived as a result of the RSPCA’s conduct. Accordingly, s 122(5) of the Act had no application. The plaintiffs were granted access to the disputed documents.

source: http://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/2013/nov/clpu45.pdf