Catchwords:
PRIVILEGE – CLIENT PRIVILEGE – Evidence Act 1995, s 125 – plaintiffs are trustees of the estate of a bankrupt – the plaintiffs contend that in 2016 the executor of an estate, the first defendant, held certain real property on trust for the bankrupt – the second and third defendants are creditors of the estate of the bankrupt – the fourth defendants are the solicitors for the second and third defendants – the second and third defendants secure the appointment of the plaintiffs as trustees of the estate of the bankrupt in place of the Official Trustee – the second and third defendants seek freezing orders against the real property said to be held by the first defendant on trust for the bankrupt – the plaintiffs claim that the second and third defendants pursued the freezing orders acting as fiduciaries on behalf of the plaintiffs for the benefit of the general creditors of the bankrupt’s estate – the second and third defendants reach a settlement agreement with the first defendant in which real property held by the first defendant is sold, and the proceeds of sale are distributed partly to the second and third defendants and partly to the first defendant – the plaintiffs allege the settlement agreement was made dishonestly in breach of the second and third defendants’ claimed fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and concealed from the plaintiffs and had the effect of fraudulently disadvantaging the other creditors of the bankrupt estate – the plaintiffs contend that client privilege has been lost in the documents because the documents were created in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or were communications which ought reasonably to have been known to have been prepared in furtherance of an abuse of power, within Evidence Act, s 125 – whether client privilege has been lost in the documents by reason of Evidence Act, s 125.