Court rejects challenges to legal professional privilege over requested documents
The Supreme Court of Queensland has dismissed requests for further disclosure across six categories of documents in a dispute involving approximately $78 million transferred from China to Australia, while ordering the plaintiffs to identify or disclose certain financial records.
In Fang v Yao [2026] QSC 242, the defendants sought further and better disclosure of seven categories of documents under r 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The plaintiffs opposed the application on grounds including legal professional privilege, relevance, and the non-existence or destruction of documents.
The proceedings concerned funds that one of the plaintiffs alleged her then-husband gifted to her and that she transferred from China to Australia in 2016. She claimed she transferred approximately $78 million into Australian bank accounts controlled by two defendants after one represented that he was a lawyer and would hold the money in his law firm's trust account.
The plaintiffs alleged that a significant amount remained unaccounted for. In September 2021, the Commissioner of Taxation garnisheed approximately $28 million from the defendants' accounts.
The defendants denied liability and disputed the plaintiff’s legal or beneficial ownership of the transferred funds. They also challenged the authenticity of the gift documentation and alleged the transfers served improper purposes related to Chinese law and Australian visa applications. The plaintiffs denied those allegations.
The disclosure application concerned legal advice about anti-money laundering obligations, immigration advice, communications with taxation authorities, electronic messages, financial records, alleged marriage documents, and material withheld on privilege grounds.
The Queensland Supreme Court rejected requests for legal communications, finding that the defendants had not established grounds to displace legal professional privilege. It also considered the documents' relevance, their existence, and compliance with procedural requirements.
It also declined to require additional affidavits concerning unavailable communications and alleged marriage documents, finding that existing affidavit evidence adequately addressed the disclosure issues.
However, the court found special circumstances warranting an order concerning financial documents relating to rental income, property ownership, and increases in property values.
The court directed the plaintiffs to identify where those documents appeared in their existing disclosure, including any privilege claims, and/or disclose any documents not previously disclosed. The court dismissed the application in all other respects.
