Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1234">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">issue waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">whereprivilege-holder acts inconsistently with the privilege by putting the contents of otherwise privileged documents in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">commissioner of taxation identified bases for satisfaction and exercises of discretion as matters evidenced in these documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">where parts of discovered documents properly masked for confidentiality or excised for irrelevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">scope of client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">communications between government department or body and employed legal advisors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">whether client legal privilege only attaches to communications between client and certificated practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">whether waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">whether legal advice obtained for improper purpose and not subject to privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 649">whether legal advice incorporated in administration decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">mann v carnell  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">loss of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">waiver by disclosure to third party.  australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">representative government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">nature of relationship between the act legislative assembly and the act executive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information act 1982 (cth), s.42(1).  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">legal advice given by attorney-general's department, australian government solicitor and department of foreign affairs and trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">nature of professional relationship between legal adviser and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">criteria determining independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">relevance of advice being given by officer having a law degree and/or admission as a legal practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">relevance of allocation of commonwealth's legal work under legal services direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">relevance of reasonable belief of client in nature of relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">third party communications falling within scope of legal advice subject to privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">no waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">decision affirmed on legal professional privilege exemption.  freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">internal working documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">citing from="[2011] AATA 556">no evidentiary basis for finding that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">respondent's claim for legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">applicant concedes that documents were created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">dispute arising in context of application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">whether requirements of procedural fairness preclude confidentiality necessary for legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">whether decision maker required to give applicant access to legal advice received where that legal advice is adverse to the applicant and is credible, relevant and significant administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">whether advice given to decision makers must be disclosed to person affected by decision where that legal advice is adverse to person affected and is credible, relevant and significant to making of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 964">whether communications capable of attracting legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">voluntary statement of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">filed "to assist the parties"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">filing constitutes no joinder of issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">legal advice in minute making recommendations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">no waiver of privilege practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">statement of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">statement as to effect of legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">waiver</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 556" id="cs0">Therefore, for example, the privilege that the Office of Film and Literature Classification had over documents brought into existence for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice regarding the exercise of its statutory powers was equally that of the Commonwealth in all of its emanations. This was the conclusion reached by Edmonds J in New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Classification Review Board . [205]

130. Legal professional privilege may only be abrogated by the clear words of a statute or by necessary implication. [206] There is no suggestion that there has been any statutory abrogation in this case.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 964" id="cs1">In my view when Brennan J referred to 'information' in Kioa he was using it in the same sense as it is used in s 428 and therefore the High Court's reasoning in SZBYR equally applies. A very similar argument to that put by the applicant here was put to Edmonds J in New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Classifications Review Board [2006] FCA 1409 ; (2006) 236 ALR 313. One issue was whether the duty to accord procedural fairness precluded the creation of privilege which otherwise attach to documents that were relevant to the judicial review application. Edmonds J was not persuaded. His Honour said, at 318:

 I am not persuaded that some overarching consideration of procedural fairness which, it is alleged, gives rise to an obligation of the review board to disclose the relevant documents to the applicant, a proposition itself attended with considerable doubt, means that privilege in the documents did not arise.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 105" id="cs2">That reference to the letter, Goldberg J concluded, was not " a disclosure of the contents of the advice or a waiver of legal professional privilege ". His Honour, however, formed " a different view in relation to the recommendation where it is explicitly stated that legal advice supporting the respondent's view of Rule No 4 has been received ": [1999] FCA 1770 at [18] .
 Similarly, it has been recognised that the use of legal advice in a way that contributes to a statutory decision does not itself constitute a waiver of privilege: New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Classification Review Board [2006] FCA 1409 at [27] , [2006] FCA 1409 ; 236 ALR 313 at 319.
 THE PRESENT PROCEEDING -- THE "EXTRA INGREDIENT"

 For the purposes of making a decision pursuant to s 5 of the 1974 Act, the Assistant Treasurer had to form an " opinion " as to whether the overseas conduct was " required or specifically authorised " by a law of the country in which the conduct took place: s 5(5)(a). For the purposes of making that decision, the Assistant Treasurer not surprisingly had before him submissions as to those overseas laws.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l3">CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ACT 1995 - SECT 44 Dealing with applications</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZF Attorney-General may issue directions</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZH Legal Services Directions and legal professional privilege</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>