CLIENT AND SOLICITOR.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 120, 23 May 1928, Page 8

CLIENT AND SOLICITOR.

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT.

INSPECTION OP DOCUMENTS.

JUDGE MacGREGOR'S RULING.

An interesting point of law was argued in the Supreme Court to-day, when, before Mr. Justice MacGregor, Mr. R. H. Mackay appeared in support of a summons asking for the Inspection of certain documents. Plaintiffs in the action pending are Messrs. Keep Bros., Ltd. (Mr. McVeagh), an English firm, and defendants Messrs. Birch and Bradshaw, Ltd. (in liquidation), a firm of painters in Auckland. The question at issue concerned the privileged secrecy of communications from clients to their solicitors.

The general legal principle is that communications made confidentially by a client to his solicitor for the purpose of obtaining assistance are privileged from disclosure unless the client consents. An exception to this is that a communication made for the purpose of enabling a client to commit a crime or to act in a fraudulent manner is not so privileged. The case had been called in chambers, but on account of the importance of the issue involved it was decided to hear it in Court.

Mr. Mackay (for Messrs. Birch and Bradshaw) said an action was pending in respect of moneys alleged to be due under a debenture. The defence is that the action was one alleging fraudulent preference. Defendants alleged that the debenture which was the basis of the present action was given at a time when the firm was not in a position to pay its debts, and the debenture was, therefore, of a fraudulent nature.

The present dispute arose over a letter sent by Messrs. Keep Brothers to their solicitors, instructing them to protect their interests, and also in respect of a diary kept by a member of the firm of solicitors. The diary recorded conversations between the solicitor and the secretary and managing director of the firm of Birch and Bradshaw.

Mr. Mackay's contention, on behalf of the defendant firm, was that he was entitled to inspect these documents on the ground that the defence alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiff company, and that these documents showed the carrying into effect of such fraud.

After reviewing the legal aspect of the matter, his Honor made an order for the inspection of the letters, but not of the diary. He held that the diary was the property of the member of the legal firm, and that the plaintiffs had no control over it. .