![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg/640px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, also known as 'Esso' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Esso v Commissioner of Taxation | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation |
Decided | 21 December 1999 |
Citations | [1999] HCA 67 201 CLR 49 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Callinan JJ |
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 |
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]