Outline of Argument

1 The defendant included on its list of documents a reference to Minutes of Blue Skies Pty Ltd Special Board Meeting from 19 No em!er "##9$ the agenda for that meeting$ and all attachments$ %hich %as thus ackno%ledged to !e rele ant& Adelaide Brighton Cement v State of SA & Anor No. SCGRG-98-211 Judgment No. S !9 '1999( SAS) *+9 ,- Septem!er 1999. at 1#& " These documents %ere claimed to !e su!/ect to legal professional pri ilege as per s1*-,+. of the Supreme )ourt 0ules "##- as the !oard meeting %as a 1Special Board Meeting &&& to consider legal ad ice relating to the claim and other legal issues&2 Supreme )ourt 0ules "##- ,SA. 0ule 1*- ,+. * The documents are rele ant to the case and are not go erned !y legal professional pri ilege as their dominant purpose %as not to o!tain legal ad ice3 "##o Au#tralia Re#our$e# %td v &ederal Commi##ioner of 'a(ation ,1999. "#1 )L0 4 Alan 5ale$ the company6s )hief 7eneral )ounsel %as not present at the !oard meeting and %as marked as an apology as can !e attested at paragraph * of 8an Brady6s affida it accompanying this outline& 9 :t is infera!le thus that there %as only one person %ith legal ;ualifications at the !oard meeting on the 19th of No em!er "##9 %as 0omaine 7eorgia %ho %as likely not acting in a legal capacity as detailed !elo%3 9&1 At paragraph 4 of 8an Brady6s affida it3 1: %as informed at a meeting in 8anuary or <e!ruary "#1"$ that Alan 5ale$ )hief 7eneral )ounsel$ introduced 0omaine 7eorgia$ as a 1ne% mem!er of the legal team2& Mr 5ale stated that 7eorgia %ould !e attending all Board meetings to 1see ho% things %ork in the company and get some e=perience2&2 0omaine 7eorgia %as not at the meeting in a solely legal capacity and thus his mere presence does not engender pri ilege& Standard Chartered Ban) of Au#tralia v Anti$o *1999. 1*1 AL01 > a!out acting in a dual capacity as a !oard mem!er and as a la%yer for a company +aterford v Common,ealth ,19?+. 1-* )L0 94 > also a!out acting in a dual capacity 7eorgia$ !eing in a /unior position under Alan 5ale$ %ho is )hief 7eneral )ounsel and on the Board of @irectors is not in a position to act independently and thus could not pro ide pri ileged legal ad ice3 Southern "-uitie# v Arthur Ander#on *No ./ '"##1( SAS) *9? + 0ele ant portions of the document in ;uestion$ if it is found to pri ileged should !e produced %ith the remainder of the documents redacted as this %ill not eliminate pri ilege for the %hole document3 A##i#tant 'rea#urer and 0ini#ter for Com1etition 2oli$3 and Con#umer Affair# v Catha3 2a$ifi$ Air,a3# %imited '"##9( <)A<) 1#9 ,*1 August "##9.