Event and Time
Event Description
This case involves a dispute between DST Bluedoor (plaintiff) and AMP (defendant) regarding the inspection of documents. DST seeks access to documents AMP asserts are legally privileged while also claiming that AMP waived that privilege. Conversely, AMP is seeking access to certain documents from DST, which DST claims are confidential.
Application and Claims
- DST Bluedoor (Plaintiff) Claims:
- The documents AMP seeks to protect are not subject to legal professional privilege. - Alternatively, they argue that AMP has waived privilege regarding the documents. - Claims that AMP solicited DST employees, breaching their Master Licence and Service Agreement (MLSA), resulting in damage to DST. - Seeks to show that AMP's actions caused the resignation of 11 employees, resulting in financial losses exceeding $27 million.
- AMP (Defendant) Claims:
- Asserts that the documents in question are privileged and not subject to inspection by DST. - Claims that access to certain exhibits is necessary to mount an effective defense.
Judicial Decisions
- The court ruled on the contested issue of what information should be disclosed between the parties.
- Judicial focus was on the relevance, confidentiality, and potential harm of the documents if disclosed, weighing the interests of both parties.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
DST's Position
- Claims of Non-privilege:
- Asserts the documents are not protected under legal professional privilege due to waiver by AMP.
- Allegations Against AMP:
- A breach of the MLSA due to solicitation of DST employees, leading to significant financial loss. - Claims for specified damages arising from the ex-employees leaving DST, including retention bonuses and lost profits.