Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] FCAFC 122 |
| Date | 2004 |
| Year | 2004 |
| Court | Full Federal Court (Australia) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
67 cases
-
The Civil Aviation Authority v R Jet2.com Ltd
...and had equal application to both manifestations of the privilege” ( Pratt Holdings Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 122 at [16] per Finn J). iv) Whilst I accept that Waugh was decided on the basis that litigation privilege applied, none of their Lordships suggested that ......
- Awb Ltd v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole
- Awb Ltd v Cole (No 5)
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
Legal professional privilege: lessons learned for multi-jurisdictional or multi-disciplinary matters
...to ensure the arrangements fell within the treatment of agents, as approved in Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357. That case held at [22] that if it is determined that a person is an agent of the client, and the agent communicates with the lawyer on behalf ......
4 books & journal articles
-
Legal Advice Privilege and the Corporate Client
...ALR 217, FedCt, at [47] per Finn J. 202 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOFLEGAL ADVICE PRIVILEGE AND THE CORPORATE CLIENT102 (2004) 207 ALR 217, FedCt, at [104–105].103 (2004) 207 ALR 217, FedCt, at [44] per Finn J.104 Thornburg, above n. 50 at 218–21.105 For example, see Three R......
-
REFLECTIONS ON S 2(2) OF SINGAPORE EVIDENCE ACT AND ROLE OF COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE
...[52]. 172Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB, Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd[2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 at [47]. 173[2004] FCAFC 122. 174Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB, Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd[2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 at [63]–[65]. 175 S......
-
Case Note: EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF LEGAL ADVICE PRIVILEGE1
...(No 6)[2005] 1 AC 610; Balabel v Air India[1988] Ch 317. 4 The recent cases include Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation(2004) 136 FCR 357; Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v Victorian Work Cover Authority[2002] 4 VR 332. 5 Following Australian authority: Pratt Holdings Pt......
-
Legal Profession
...It was observed in the Singapore case that the Australian view, as expressed in Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation(2004) 136 FCR 357, was preferable to the narrower English view as it was more consonant with the modern conditions under which legal advice is typically sought a......