Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Last updated

Esso v Commissioner of Taxation
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameEsso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Decided21 December 1999
Citation(s) [1999] HCA 67
201 CLR 49
Case opinions
The common law test for legal professional privilege is the 'dominant purpose' test
(per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ)
(concurring - Callinan J)
dissent
McHugh J
Kirby J
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Callinan JJ

Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, also known as 'Esso' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Contents

At issue was a claim of legal professional privilege by the oil and gas conglomerate Esso, in respect of over 500 documents. The documents were subject of a discovery order by the Commissioner of Taxation during a proceeding by the company against a set of amended income tax assessments. [1]

The case is notable as an authority for the test of legal professional privilege in Australian common law. It established the 'dominant purpose' test as the applicable test, overruling the 'sole purpose' test from Grant v Downs. This unified Australia's common law test with those established by prominent Evidence law statutes; particularly the Evidence Acts belonging to the Commonwealth and NSW. [1] It also algined Australia's test with that of other common law jurisdictions such as that of New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Prior to Esso, differing tests at common law and statute caused complications for Australian judges and legal practitioners. For example, differing tests applied between privilege in the adduction of evidence, and privilege in pre-trial proceedings. [2]

Facts

In 1996 Esso commenced proceedings in the Federal Court, appealing against amended income tax assessments. Orders for discovery were made, and privilege was claimed in respect of 577 documents. [1] After discussion between the parties, it was agreed that some of the documents qualified for protection under the sole purpose test; whereas others would only be protected by the dominant purpose test. [3]

At first instance, Foster J held that the correct test that applied to the discovered documents was the 'sole purpose' test in Grant v Downs; rather than the 'dominant purpose' test as set out in ss118 and 119 of the Evidence Act 1999 (Cth). [4]

Foster J's finding was upheld by the Full Federal Court by Black CJ, Sundberg and Finkelstein JJ. Beaumont and Merkel JJ dissented. [5]

Esso then appealed to the High Court. One of their arguments was that the court should declare that at common law, the dominant purpose test applies to legal professional privilege. [1]

Judgement

Pictured: the 'Esso building' in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Photo taken in 1950. Esso Building, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LOC gsc.5a19958.jpg
Pictured: the 'Esso building' in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Photo taken in 1950.
Pictured: Esso's corporate logo. Esso is a trading name/brand for its parent company, ExxonMobil. The company began as Standard Oil of New Jersey following the breakup of Standard Oil. Esso textlogo.svg
Pictured: Esso's corporate logo. Esso is a trading name/brand for its parent company, ExxonMobil. The company began as Standard Oil of New Jersey following the breakup of Standard Oil.

Majority

Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ

The plurality judgement discussed at length the history of common law development sometimes having origins 'in statute, or as glosses on statute, or as responses to statute'. [6] Nevertheless, they declined to develop the common law test in this way. [7] Instead, they decided to accept the appellant's invitation to reconsider Grant v Downs. [8]

The plurality rationalized the majority judgement in Grant v Downs as compatible with the dominant purpose test. [9] Barwick CJ's view in that case, previously referred to as a dissent, was recharacterised by the court in Esso as a concurrence. The court noted a passage from Barwick in that case which had 'proven influential in other jurisdictions'.

Barwick had written: [10]

'The Court should state the relevant principle as follows: a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection.'

They acknowledged that the Grant sole purpose test had been followed in Australia for 20 years. They then decided to evaluate whether to reconsider the reasoning of the majority. This evaluation was undertaken with reference to Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund, a case concerning principles relating applying to the High Court's reconsideration of its own opinions. [11]

The court then characterised the sole purpose test enunciated by Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ in Grant as unprincipled. The plurality then claimed that their reasons did not require a preference for the sole purpose test over the dominant purpose test. [12]

It described the primary issue facing the court with regard to the two tests as follows: [13]

'The search is for a test which strikes an appropriate balance between two competing considerations: the public policy reflected in the privilege itself, and the public policy that, in the administration of justice and investigative procedures, there should be unfettered access to relevant information. Additionally, whatever test is adopted must be capable of being applied in practice with reasonable certainty and without undue delay and expense in resolving disputed claims.'

The New Zealand Court of Appeal was quoted for calling the sole purpose test 'extraordinarily narrow'. 'If to be taken literally' the plurality in Esso said; legal professional privilege would be displaced if there existed merely 'one other purpose in addition to the legal purpose, regardless of how relatively unimportant it may be, and even though, without the legal purpose, the document would never have come into existence'. [14] The court asserted that some judges had applied the Grant v Downs test in non-literal ways, suggesting that the test was unworkable; and that judges were implicitly applying the dominant purpose anyway. [14] The court even suggested that arguments from the Taxation Commissioner in an effort to define what they meant by the sole purpose test, actually resembled (and therefore supported) adoption of the dominant purpose test. [14]

Of the legal tests for privilege prior to Grant v Downs, the plurality said they were 'unduly protective of written communications within corporations and bureaucracies'. The sole purpose test was said to 'go to the other extreme'. Corporations and bureaucracies 'necessarily conduct a large proportion of their internal communications in writing. If the circumstance that a document primarily directed to lawyers is incidentally directed to someone else as well means that privilege does not attach, the result seems to alter the balance too far the other way'. [15]

The High Court then said 'the dominant purpose test should be preferred'; presumably endorsing the test as it was formulated by Barwick CJ in Grant. This test was said to 'strike a just balance, it suffices to rule out claims of the kind considered in Grant v Downs and Waugh, [16] and bring the common law of Australia into conformity with other common law jurisdictions'. [17]

Callinan J

Concurring with the plurality, Callinan J discussed the sole purpose test at length, alongside critical commentary of the Grant decision. He regarded the Grant v Downs test as an inconvenient test, and not 'wholly fair' in accordance with the 'underlying rationale for legal professional privilege, of candour by clients in communications with legal advisers'. Neither did the test emerge, in his view, from 'full and considered argument by the parties' in Grant v Downs. Additionally, Callinan J was concerned that the test 'may have a tendency to discriminate against corporations and other large organisations'. [18]

For those reasons he decided that Grant v Downs ought be overruled. [19] He endorsed comments by the House of Lords which themselves endorsed the 'dominant purpose' test as expressed by Barwick in Grant v Downs. [20] He added that 'whether a purpose is a dominant purpose, is, in my view, a matter to be objectively determined but the subjective purpose will always be relevant and often decisive'. [21]

Dissenting

McHugh J

In his honours opinion, the ratio of Grant v Downs ought not have been overruled. McHugh gave two reasons for this. His first reason was that the dominant purpose test would 'extend the area of privilege with the result that a party to litigation, and the court, would have less access to relevant material'. His second reason was that it would impose a test that is 'not easy of application and which seems inconsistent with the rationale of legal professional privilege'. [22]

He added that the dominant purpose test was one that would 'lead to extensive interlocutory litigation because ... the person claiming privilege can be cross-examined on the affidavit claiming privilege'. [22]

Kirby J

Kirby referred to comments he had made in an earlier case in which he had suggested that:

'a brake on the application of legal professional privilege is needed to prevent its operation bringing the law into "disrepute", principally because it frustrates access to communications which would otherwise help courts to determine, with accuracy and efficiency, where the truth lies in disputed matters'. [23]

He stated that he 'remained of that view' and that Esso's appeal to change the common law ought be rejected.

Significance

Esso is a decision of high importance to the Australian legal system. According to LawCite, it is the 112th most cited High Court decision in Australia. [24] [25]

Professor Chester Brown of the University of Sydney, commented in 2000 of the decision, writing: [26]

"The decision in Esso significantly broadens the scope of legal professional privilege, and its practical effect is to alleviate the problem of protecting privileged information in large corporations and public authorities.

While the decision is sound from a practical point of view, the dissenting judges raise legitimate concerns over the extension of the privilege. These concerns include a possible increase in the amount of pre-trial applications challenging privilege claims, and an enhancement of the ability of large litigants to claim privilege over non-legal communications and, accordingly, frustrate the ability of judicial decision-makers to have access to relevant information."

In addition to the case's relevance to legal professional privilege; Esso has been cited by the High Court as supporting the proposition that legislation has a legitimate influence on the development of Australian common law. [27] It has also been cited by the Commonwealth Government in Plaintiff M47/2012, in which it was used to support an argument that 'the power to disturb settled authority is to be exercised with restraint'. The precedent at dispute in Plaintiff M47 was Al-Kateb. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 2)</i> 1992 High Court of Australia decision which overturned "terra nullius" and recognised native title

Mabo v Queensland is a decision of the High Court of Australia, decided on 3 June 1992. It is a landmark case, brought by Eddie Mabo against the State of Queensland. The case is notable for recognising the pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within Australia's common law. Prior to Mabo, the pre-colonial property rights of Indigenous Australians were not recognised at common law.

Garfield Barwick 7th Chief Justice of Australia and politician (1903-1997)

Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick, was an Australian judge who was the seventh and longest serving Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1964 to 1981. He had earlier been a Liberal Party politician, serving as a minister in the Menzies Government from 1958 to 1964.

Lionel Murphy Australian politician

Lionel Keith Murphy QC was an Australian politician, barrister, and judge. He was a Senator for New South Wales from 1962 to 1975, serving as Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government, and then sat on the High Court from 1975 until his death.

Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia's leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen in 1982 and Commonwealth v Tasmania expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states. Gibbs dissented from the majority verdict in both cases. On 3 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Queensland Library opened the Sir Harry Gibbs Legal Heritage Centre. It is the only legal heritage museum of its kind in Queensland and features a permanent exhibition dedicated to the life and legacy of Sir Harry Gibbs.

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia enumerates the legislative powers granted to Federal Parliament by the Australian States at Federation.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Owen Dixon Australian judge and diplomat (1886–1972)

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Australian case

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<i>Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

In common law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

<i>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

<i>Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation</i>

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a High Court of Australia case that upheld the existence of an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution however that did not itself provide a defence to a defamation action. The High Court extended the defence of qualified privilege to be compatible with the freedom of political communication.

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways</i> (NSW)

General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Brown, Chester (2000). "Case Note: Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal. 23 (1): 175 – via UNSW.
  2. ↑ Brown, Chester (2000). "Case Note: Esso Australia Resources v Commissioner of Taxation" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal. 23 (1): 174 – via UNSW.
  3. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [7]
  4. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [8]
  5. ↑ 83 FCR 511
  6. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [19] - [27]
  7. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [28]
  8. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [34]
  9. ↑ 201 CLR 49; at [44] quoting Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 687-688.
  10. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at para [46], quoting Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 677
  11. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [55]
  12. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at para 56
  13. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [57]
  14. 1 2 3 201 CLR 49 at [58]
  15. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [59]
  16. ↑ Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521
  17. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [61]
  18. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [166]
  19. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [167]
  20. ↑ Waugh [1980] AC 521 at 537
  21. ↑ 201 CLR 49 at [172]
  22. 1 2 201 CLR 49 at [65]
  23. ↑ 201 CLR 49 para 86, quoting 188 CLR 501 at 581
  24. ↑ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  25. ↑ Note: list is as of September 2020
  26. ↑ Brown, Chester (2000). "Case note: Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal. 23 (1): 190 – via UNSW.
  27. ↑ Binsaris v Northern Territory (03 June 2020)[2020] HCA 22; 94 ALJR 664; 380 ALR 1 - Gageler J at [44], albeit cited as a counterfactual
  28. ↑ Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security (05 October 2012)[2012] HCA 46; 251 CLR 1; 86 ALJR 1372; 292 ALR 243 - Bell J at para [525]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.