POINT OF LAW.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 149, 24 May 1928, Page 2

POINT OF LAW.

INTERESTING ARGUMENT

INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

AUCKLAND, May 23.

An interesting point of law was argued in the Supreme Court to-day, when, before Air Justice MacGregor. Mr R- H. Mackay appeared in support of a summons asking for tlie inspection of certain documents. Plaintiffs in the action pending afe Messrs Keep Bros., Ltd. (Mr McY cagh), an English firm, and defendants Messrs Birch and Bradshaw, Ltd. (in liquidation), a firm of painters at Auckland. Tho question at ifsue concerned the privileged secrecy of commuicatioiis from clients to their solicitors. Iho 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 provileged. The case had been called ill Chambers, but on account of the importance of the issue involved, it was decided to hear it in Court. Air 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 win 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 tlieir interests, and also in respect of a diary kept by a member of the Urm of solicitors. The diary recorded conversations between the solicitor and the secretary and mananging director of tho firm of Birch and Bradshaw. _ Mr Mackay’s contention, on behalf of the j defendant firm, was that lie was entitled to inspect these documents, on the ground that the defence alleged fraud on the part of plaintiff company, and that- these documents showed the carrying into effect- qf such a fraud. After reviewing the legal aspect of the matter, His Honour made an order for the inspection of the letters, but not of the diary. He held that- tho diary was .the property of the member of the legal firm, and that plaintiffs had no control' over it.